OKLAHOMA
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Zebra Mussels
White Perch
Golden Alga
Hydrilla
OKLAHOMA
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Produced by:
Ashley Foster, Jeff Boxrucker, Gene Gilliland, Bill Wentroth
Updated by Curtis Tackett
August 2009
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
___________________________________
Honorable Brad Henry, Governor
State of Oklahoma
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents……..................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary......................................................................................................... 4
Introduction.......................................................................................................................6
Problem Definition..........................................................................................................10
Goals..............................................................................................................................23
Existing Authorities and Programs.................................................................................24
Objectives, Strategies, Actions & Cost Estimates..........................................................32
Objective 1: Coordinate and implement a comprehensive management plan..........32
Objective 2: Prevent the introduction of new ANS into Oklahoma............................35
Objective 3: Detect, monitor, and eradicate ANS......................................................38
Objective 4: Control & eradicate established ANS that have significant impacts…..40
Objective 5: Educate resource user groups..............................................................43
Objective 6: Conduct/support research.....................................................................45
Priorities for Action..........................................................................................................49
Implementation Table.....................................................................................................51
Program Monitoring........................................................................................................56
Glossary.........................................................................................................................57
Literature Cited...............................................................................................................59
Appendices.....................................................................................................................62
Appendix A: List of non-indigenous and transplanted species in Oklahoma.......62
Appendix B: ANS Steering Committee and Technical Advisors..........................64
Appendix C: Harmful Algal Bloom Response Plan…….…………………………..68
Appendix D: BOR Zebra and Quaqqa Mussel PCR Results for 2008…………...79
Appendix E: Acronyms Defined...........................................................................80
Appendix F: Public Comments……………………………………………………….81
Appendix G: Boater Survey Report………………………………………………….92
Appendix H: Boater Survey…………………………………………………………117
3
A. Executive Summary
Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) pose significant ecological and socio-economic
threats to aquatic ecosystems in Oklahoma. Zebra mussels, golden alga, white perch,
hydrilla, among others, have already become established in Oklahoma aquatic systems.
While their initial impacts have been limited and localized, there is little doubt that these
and other ANS pose a serious threat to the aquatic resources, and potentially the
economy, of the State of Oklahoma.
The importance of the State’s aquatic resources requires a coherent and integrated
response to the threat posed by ANS. Using guidance from the National ANS Task
Force and other accepted state agency plans such as Kansas, Illinois, Iowa and
Oregon, this management plan was developed to establish management actions to
address the prevention, control, and effects of non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species
that have invaded or may invade Oklahoma waters. The Oklahoma Aquatic Nuisance
Species Management Plan serves as the initial step in establishing a program to
specifically address ANS issues in Oklahoma.
The development of a state ANS management plan, as called for in Section 1204 of the
Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA) of 1990,
provides an opportunity for federal cost-share support for implementation of the plan.
NANPCA, reauthorized in 1996 as the National Invasive Species Act (NISA), specifies
that state plans identify feasible, cost-effective management practices and measures
that can be implemented by the state to prevent and control ANS infestations in an
environmentally sound manner. The goal of the Oklahoma ANS Management Plan is
to: Minimize the harmful ecological, economic, and social impact of ANS through
prevention and management of introduction, population growth, and dispersal of ANS
into, within, and from Oklahoma.
The goal will be met by implementing a set of objectives as follows:
1. Coordinate and implement a comprehensive management plan.
2. Prevent the introduction of new ANS into Oklahoma.
3. Detect, monitor, and eradicate ANS.
4. Control and eradicate established ANS that have significant impacts.
5. Educate resource user groups about the risks and impacts of ANS and how to
reduce the harmful impacts.
6. Conduct/support research to determine risks associated with pathways of
introduction/spread, environmental conditions favorable for establishment of
ANS, interactions with native species, and cost-effective and environmentally
safe control/eradication measures.
4
Included in this plan are discussions of existing problems, a summary of federal,
regional, and state policy; a list of non-indigenous species known to exist in Oklahoma;
identification of existing priority ANS, and a discussion of regional ANS that pose a
threat to Oklahoma’s aquatic ecosystems.
To ensure that the goals of this plan are being effectively addressed a procedure for
monitoring and evaluating the implementation of strategies and tasks will be initiated.
This evaluation will focus on the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of management
activities. The plan is a working document and will be periodically updated and
expanded based upon the experience gained from implementation, scientific research,
and new tools as they become available.
The effort to develop a state ANS management plan was led by the Oklahoma
Department of Wildlife Conservation in conjunction with personnel from other
government agencies and private organizations (Appendix B). Public comments were
solicited from local governments, regional entities, public and private organizations, and
resource user groups that have expertise and interest in the control of ANS. Comments
were considered, and revisions have been made to the plan.
5
B. Introduction
Non-native invasive species, or for the purpose of this document, aquatic nuisance
species (ANS), threaten the ecological integrity of aquatic systems worldwide. These
invaders displace native species, disrupt ecological processes, upset the stability of
ecosystems, and can irreversibly change natural landscapes. In addition to the
ecological damage caused by ANS, the burden to local, state, and federal economies
can be staggering. State and local governments spend hundreds of millions of dollars
annually to control ANS. It is estimated that ANS cost the U.S. economy $137 billion
annually (Pimentel et al. 2000).
Recognizing the ecological and economic threats posed by ANS, the federal
government passed the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
(NANPCA) in 1990. This legislation provided a funding mechanism for states to
address ANS issues. This legislation was expanded with passage of the National
Invasive Species Act (NISA) in 1996. NISA specifies that state plans identify feasible,
cost-effective management strategies to prevent introductions of and control the spread
of ANS in an environmentally sound manner. For Oklahoma to be eligible for federal
cost-share funds to combat ANS, a state-wide ANS management plan must be
approved by the Federal ANS Task Force established under NISA.
Oklahoma’s State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP; State Wildlife Grant T-2-P-1) identifies
exotic and invasive species as one of five priority issues that threaten the conservation
of Oklahoma’s wildlife resources. Specific issues within SWAP that identify ANS as
threats include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
water diversion projects, particularly inter-basin transfers, that can serve as
pathways for the spread of ANS;
nutrient runoff from fertilizers and confined animal feeding operations degrade water
quality and destabilize aquatic systems which increases the potential for
establishment of non-native species;
establishment of ANS destabilizes aquatic systems often resulting in decreased
biodiversity and threatening populations of “species of greatest conservation need”;
movement of species outside their native range by the public, i.e., bait bucket
releases, were likely the cause of establishment of the Red river shiner Notropis
bairdi becoming established in the Cimarron River and the Red river pupfish
Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis becoming established in the Canadian River;
zebra mussels Dreissena polymorpha and Asian carp are potential threats to native
mussel populations.
Action plans identified in SWAP to deal with these threats include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
develop an invasive species management plan;
survey aquatic systems to determine distribution of ANS;
remove non-native plants from wetlands and restore native plant communities;
develop cost-share or incentive programs for private landowners to encourage
control of ANS on private property;
6
ƒ
educate the public on ANS issues and roles that the public plays in preventing
introductions and controlling the spread of ANS.
Development of this plan is partially funded through a SWAP grant (T-44-P-1) to the
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC).
The northeast quadrant of Oklahoma is the region of the state currently most impacted
by ANS (Figure 1). Zebra mussels have moved up the McClellen-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation system, most likely via barge traffic from the Mississippi River and are
progressing down the Arkansas River via natural movement from El Dorado Reservoir
in Kansas. Bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys nobilis have been found in Grand Lake
and in the Neosho River above Grand Lake. Bighead carp have also been verified from
the Red River below Lake Texoma and from the Kiamichi River below Hugo Lake.
White perch Morone americana have moved downstream from Cheney Reservoir in
Kansas and are currently found in Kaw and Keystone Reservoirs. They will likely
continue to move downstream throughout the Arkansas River system. Golden alga
Prymnesium parvum has caused fish kills in Lake Texoma and Altus City Lake. Hydrilla
Hydrilla verticillata has recently been found in Arbuckle, Murray, and Sooner Reservoirs,
likely as a result of movements via recreational boaters. The exotic zooplankton
Daphnia lumholzi has been found in 18 Oklahoma reservoirs. Strategies to contain
these and other ANS species infesting Oklahoma waters, as well as strategies to
prevent the introduction of ANS not currently found in Oklahoma will be addressed in
this plan.
●zebra mussels
▲bighead carp
▼white perch
■golden alga
♦exotic water flea
►hydrilla
◘didymo
Figure 1. Current known distribution of selected ANS in Oklahoma as of August 2009
7
To prevent the spread of ANS into, or out of Oklahoma, strategies that are
cohesive with those of neighboring states are vital. The Arkansas River runs through
both Kansas and Oklahoma and has served as a pathway for the introduction of ANS.
Lake Texoma is shared by Oklahoma and Texas and has experienced fish kills due to
golden alga. Grand Lake in the northeastern corner of Oklahoma is a popular fishing
destination connected to Missouri via the Elk River. Kansas has an approved state
ANS management plan and Missouri and Texas both have plans drafted. Texas has
also produced a state plan for the management of golden alga in public waters. The
strategies in these documents were considered and incorporated where relevant in this
management plan. A common goal of Oklahoma and its bordering states is to establish
working partnerships with ANS management programs in regional states to facilitate the
sharing of data and coordination of management activities. Oklahoma, Texas and
Kansas all support the 100th Meridian Initiative, and participate in the Western and
Mississippi River Basin Panels of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.
Participation in these forums will help to facilitate development of a coordinated network
among state agencies to document, evaluate, and monitor effects of invasive species
on the economy, the environment, and human health.
As per Rendall (1997), ANS management plans need to consider the following points
when developing strategies to control invasive species:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
many pathways exist for the introduction and spread of ANS, most of which are
related to human activity; new species are continually introduced via these
pathways;
introductions have many associated costs, i.e., control and management costs, longterm ecosystem changes, loss of recreational opportunities;
once ANS become established, few, if any, acceptable control measures are
available; control measures are very expensive and eradication unlikely;
prevention is the best course of action with comprehensive management plans,
education programs, and regulations offering the best chances of containment.
These points have provided guidance in drafting the strategies aimed at prevention and
control of ANS in Oklahoma’s aquatic ecosystems.
The intended outcomes of this plan include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
identifying species of greatest concern, whether currently present in Oklahoma
waters or likely to invade in the future;
create sufficient funding and personnel to support the plan;
identify gaps in distribution data to focus survey efforts to best determine current
distribution patterns;
identify pathways for spread of invasives outward from current locations;
identify shortcomings in current statutes aimed at preventing introductions of ANS
not currently in Oklahoma and movement of ANS to uninfested systems;
recommend language to lawmakers on how to strengthen said regulations;
develop public outreach strategies to raise public awareness of ANS issues and the
role of aquatic resource users in preventing their introduction and spread;
8
ƒ
create a framework for coordination of ANS activities among federal, state and local
government, private industry, non-governmental organizations, and the public.
The ODWC was the lead agency in drafting this plan. Members of the Zebra Mussel
Task Force (ZMTF), an interagency coordination group established shortly after zebra
mussels were found in Oklahoma (1993) and the ANS Plant Task Force (PTF) reviewed
drafts of the plan. Staffs from the office of the State Secretary of the Interior,
representatives from state agencies with regulatory authority over ANS issues and
academics from state universities with expertise in ANS were involved in the review
process. A complete list of individuals and their respective agencies are included in
Appendix B. Public comments were solicited from local governments, private industry,
public and private organizations, and resource user groups. All comments were
considered and incorporated where appropriate. A summary of these comments is
included in Appendix E.
To effectively manage ANS, a definition must first be established to help focus
resources aimed at control and management of individual species. Oklahoma will use
the definition for invasive species, or for the purpose of this report, ANS, outlined in
Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species, signed by President Clinton on February 3,
1999. The Order states that an “invasive species” is one that is non-native to the
affected ecosystem and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or
environmental harm or harm to human health. As per this definition, not all non-native
species are considered ANS. ODWC uses non-native species, such as striped bass
Morone saxatilis and walleye Sander vitreum and their hybrids in its management
programs. These species have created economically valuable fisheries with no
measurable negative affects on reservoir ecosystems.
C. Problem Definition
Non-indigenous Aquatic Animals
A draft list of non-indigenous aquatic animals in Oklahoma is included in Appendix A
and is based on existing data. As such, the list is likely incomplete as information on
such animals in Oklahoma is limited. A discussion of ANS species considered of
special concern in Oklahoma follows.
Asian Carp: The life history traits of Asian carps (e.g., reproductive capability,
population densities, feeding habits, broad climate tolerance, mobility, and longevity)
indicate that they have a high probability of causing ecological and economic effects
where populations become established (Mandrak and Cudmore 2004; Kolar et al. 2005;
Nico et al. 2005). In some locations of the Mississippi River Basin, such effects have
occurred. Natural resources managers are concerned that the four species of Asian
carp have the potential to cause extensive and irreversible changes to the aquatic
environment, thereby jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of native aquatic species,
particularly to imperiled, threatened, and endangered species. Confounding this
situation is the fact that the bighead carp has been cultured and sold as a live food fish
product since the early 1980s, grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella have been stocked
nationally by public and private entities since the late 1960s as a biological control for
9
aquatic weeds (grass carp are also cultured and sold as a live food fish product), and
the black carp Mylopharyngodon piceus has been used since the early 1980s as a
biological control for pest snails in commercial aquaculture production ponds.
Small silver carp Hypophthalmichthys molitrix and bighead carp resemble gizzard shad
Dorosoma cepedianum. Cast-netting for bait in tailwaters below some major reservoirs
in Oklahoma has the potential to introduce Asian carp into some of the premier sport
fishing lakes in the state. Anglers routinely cast net for bait below the Dennison Dam at
Lake Texoma and use the bait to fish for striped bass or catfish in Lake Texoma. Asian
carp can be accidentally introduced into the lake through this practice. Bighead and
silver carp have reproductive requirements similar to those of striped bass. There is a
real potential to establish a reproducing population of Asian carp in Lake Texoma which
could be devastating to the striped bass fishery and paddlefish Polyodon spathula
recovery efforts.
Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella): Grass carp are native to large rivers in Asia,
ranging from the Amur River in China and Siberia south to the West River in China and
Thailand. As a food fish, the species has been cultured nearly worldwide. The diploid
grass carp has been used for biological control of aquatic plants. Numerous studies
have been conducted to evaluate its potential for reproduction, feeding preferences,
stocking rates, and impacts on other aquatic resources (Smith and Shireman 1983).
However, the potential of the diploid grass carp to naturally reproduce caused
considerable controversy over its use as a biological control agent. This eventually led
to the production of sterile, triploid grass carp which most states allow to be used for the
control of aquatic plants, at least for experimental purposes. Through the use of grass
carp to control excessive aquatic vegetation, they have been legally introduced into at
least 35 states, including Oklahoma. Diploid grass carp stocking for control of aquatic
vegetation in private waters was legalized in Oklahoma in the early 1980's. Currently
grass carp are available for purchase for private use through a number of commercial
fish producers in the state. The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
currently uses grass carp on its four fish hatcheries for control of aquatic vegetation in
culture ponds. Grass carp orient to flow and will quickly leave ponds when water is
flowing over the spillway. Today grass carp can be found in most reservoirs in
Oklahoma and reproduction of grass carp has been verified in Lake Texoma by ODWC
biologists and the University of Oklahoma (Hargrave and Gido 2004). The ability of
grass carp to consume vegetation and reproduce in state waters gives them the
potential to significantly impact, if not totally eradicate, beneficial aquatic plants.
Without protective and escape cover, small species of fish and young game fish
abundances would decline. Their distribution throughout the state makes grass carp a
significant threat that warrants attention.
Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis): The bighead carp is a large-bodied
planktivore endemic to eastern China. In 1973, an aquaculturist introduced bighead
carp into Arkansas in an attempt to improve water quality in production ponds (Freeze
and Henderson 1982). In 1974, regulations were mandated to restrict bighead carp
stocking into public waters of Arkansas to reduce the probability of accidental
introductions. Despite these regulations, bighead carp escaped from aquaculture
facilities and subsequently dispersed into nineteen states. The bighead carp has been
10
observed in Oklahoma below Hugo dam in the Kiamichi River, below Denison Dam on
the Red River, and in the Neosho River in and above Grand Lake (Pigg et al. 1993;
Pigg et al. 1997). This species is currently not in sufficient numbers to cause harm, but
this situation could change as bighead carp become more widespread in Oklahoma.
Silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix): Silver carp were imported and stocked
for phytoplankton control in eutrophic water bodies and also as a food fish. They were
first brought into the United States in 1973 when a private fish farmer imported them
into Arkansas. By 1980 the species was discovered in natural waters, probably a result
of escapes from fish hatcheries and other types of aquaculture facilities (Freeze and
Henderson 1982). In numbers, the silver carp has the potential to cause enormous
damage to native species because it feeds on plankton required by larval fish and
native mussels. Population densities in the Mississippi River have exploded and native
fish species have been displaced. Presently, silver carp have been recorded in 12
states including Oklahoma (Benson et al. 2001). Although they have been found in
Oklahoma, silver carp do not appear to be causing any severe problems at this point.
This situation could change as silver carp become more widespread. Monitoring of this
species will be needed.
Black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus): The black carp is a large river fish native to
Pacific drainages in eastern Asia. Black carp entered the United States in the early
1970s as a contaminant in imported grass carp and are currently being maintained in
research and fish production facilities in seven states including two that border
Oklahoma (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Approximately 30 black carp escaped
from a fish farm in Missouri into the Osage River, Missouri River basin, in April 1994.
The first specimen reported from the wild was captured in March 2003 from Horseshoe
Lake, Illinois. A second specimen was captured from the wild in the lower Red River,
Louisiana in April 2004 (Nico and Fuller 2004). In 2007, the black carp was listed as an
injurious species under the Lacey Act. Black carp are likely to survive in the wild and
spread throughout the Mississippi drainage. Black carp are molluscivores but also feed
on freshwater shrimp, crayfish, and insects thus competing for food with native fish and
wildlife species (Nico and Williams 1996). If black carp become established in North
American ecosystems, their feeding habits could drastically modify the ecological
balance and forever change the aesthetic, recreational, and economical values of native
aquatic systems. This species would also be especially harmful to native unionid
mussels, a taxonomic group that is already imperiled throughout its native range. It is
highly probable that black carp would feed on and reduce populations of native mussels
and snails (Nico and Williams 1996). Even at relatively small sizes (age 4), black carp
will eat 3-4 lbs. of mollusks daily, posing a direct threat to one of the most diverse
mollusk faunas in the world.
The risks that black carp pose to ecosystem integrity do not stop at its direct effect via
mollusk predation. Mollusks serve a critical role in maintaining ecosystem health
through their role as filter feeders. Mollusks also serve as “early warning systems” in
identifying degrading water quality. Black carp also pose a threat to other aquatic
organisms through competition for food with native molluscivores and serve as hosts to
a wide array of parasites that could have negative impacts on native species and
11
potentially humans. Black carp have not been reported in Oklahoma, but the potential
ecological harm posed by black carp and their current proximity to Oklahoma make it a
significant threat that warrants attention.
White perch (Morone americana): A native to the Atlantic coast region of North
America, the white perch invaded the Great Lakes in the 1950s through the Welland
and Erie canals (Boileau 1985). Through competition with native species, predation on
fish eggs, preying on young fish, and hybridization with white bass Morone chrysops,
white perch can quickly become the dominant species in freshwater lakes. White perch
tend to stunt and become undesirable when over-population occurs in freshwater lakes
(Scott and Crossman 1990). Since its arrival, it has been associated with declines in
both walleye and white bass populations in those areas where it has become wellestablished. White perch were introduced in Kansas from a contaminated stocking of
striped bass in Cheney Reservoir. A reproducing population subsequently became
established followed by downstream migration in the Arkansas River. The species is
now established in Kaw Lake, Oklahoma. White perch populations have spread into
Kaw, Sooner and Keystone Lakes in Oklahoma with continued migration downstream
throughout the Arkansas Rivers system appearing likely. This is a priority species, and
demands immediate attention and management.
Brook Stickleback (Culaea inconstans): Brook sticklebacks occur in Canada and the
northern United States, but have become established to the south, including Oklahoma,
through bait bucket transfers. Pigg et al. (1993) discovered brook stickleback in a bait
shipment of fathead minnows from Minnesota and suggested a possible link between its
introduction into Oklahoma and the bait fish industry. A much earlier report in
Oklahoma is apparently based on observations of this species in bait tanks near Ft.
Gibson Reservoir in Wagoner County (Heard 1959; Moore and Riggs 1963). Although,
there are no verified records from open waters, at least some individuals were likely
introduced through discarded or escaped bait. The impact of their introduction is largely
unknown at this time. Woodling (1985) stated that the species is pugnacious and preys
on eggs. As such, its use as a bait fish is discouraged so as to prevent accidental
range expansion.
Rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus): Introduced into the United States in the early
1900s as baitfish, this Eurasian native is found in 20 states, including Oklahoma (Nico
and Fuller 2003). Similar in appearance to the golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas,
the rudd is capable of growing to 20 inches in length. Currently, the rudd is one of the
most rapidly spreading non-indigenous fishes in the United States. The greatest threat
posed by the rudd is its ability to hybridize with the golden shiner which may endanger
that species’ genetic integrity (Burkhead and Williams 1991). While little is known about
the threat posed by rudd, its occurrence in several Oklahoma rivers suggest the need to
monitor this ANS.
Northern snakehead (Channa argus): Most likely brought into the United States as a
food fish, the northern snakehead is a predatory fish native to Asia. It became a
concern in the Mid-Atlantic after being discovered in Maryland ponds and the Potomac
River (Courtenay and Williams 2004). A voracious predator with sharp teeth and mature
body length from three to four feet, snakeheads have the potential to drastically alter
12
freshwater ecosystems by out competing native fish species, including many sport fish.
Snakeheads prey on fish, frogs, crustaceans, and aquatic insects. Many species of
snakehead fish, including northern snakehead, have the ability to breath air and crawl
short distances between waterbodies. Its native range suggests it could become
established throughout the contiguous United States (Courtenay and Williams 2004). It
is currently illegal to possess or import any species of snakehead (Channa spp.) or their
eggs in Oklahoma. A reproducing population was confirmed in the Pine Creek drainage
in eastern Arkansas in April, 2008. An eradication process was implemented by the
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission to control the population. Northern snakeheads
have not been reported in Oklahoma, but the potential ecological harm posed by
northern snakeheads and their current proximity to Oklahoma make it a significant
threat that warrants attention.
Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha): The zebra mussel is one of the best known
invaders of the Great Lakes region and other areas of the country where it has spread.
Zebra mussels were introduced from Eastern Europe via ballast water discharge from
European freighters. In the late-1980s, the zebra mussel was discovered in Lake St.
Clair, between Lake Huron and Lake Erie. This species spread rapidly to 20 states in
the Mississippi River drainage. Zebra mussels can easily survive overland transport
while attached to boat hulls or in live wells, engine cooling systems, or bait buckets.
Live zebra mussels have been found at California agricultural stations on boats from the
Midwest, and in Washington on boats destined for British Columbia.
The zebra mussel is a prolific fouling organism with great potential to disrupt fish
passage facilities and cause ecological and economic damage. It is a highly
opportunistic mollusk, reproduces rapidly, and consumes large quantities of plankton
from the water column (Trometer et al. 1999). The potential and profound impacts to
fisheries include changes in food availability and spawning areas. Reductions in density
and biomass of the zooplankton community may result in reduced growth or abundance
of age-0 fish. The first year of a fishes' life is a time when it is most vulnerable to
predation; reduced growth rates at this age may extend this period of vulnerability (Wu
and Culver 1991).
Economic impacts of zebra mussels are primarily caused by their fouling characteristics.
Mussel build-up on water intake/discharge structures cause utilities, and industries to
incur significant costs associated with monitoring, cleaning, and controlling infestations.
According to a recent economic impact study, each of 84 Great Lakes water users
reported average total zebra mussel control expenditures of $513,600 over the five-year
period from 1989 to 1994 (Hushak et al. 1995). Nationwide expenditures to control
zebra mussels in water control infrastructures are estimated at $3.1 billion over 10 years
(U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment 1993).
In Oklahoma, Zebra mussels were first found in the McClellen-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation System 1993, most likely moving up the river with barge traffic. From there
zebra mussels have moved up the navigation system and have attached to locks in the
Port of Catoosa near Tulsa. Populations remained relatively low, rarely exceeding
5000/m2. However, a population explosion occurred in 2004, coincident with a mild
summer, when densities in excess of 100,000/m2 were recorded. Zebra mussels were
13
found in Oologah Reservoir in 2003, likely as hitchhikers on recreational boat traffic.
Zebra mussels were found in Kaw Reservoir in 2004, likely moving downstream from a
population established in El Dorado Lake, Kansas. Zebra mussels continued to move
downstream, infesting Sooner and Keystone Reservoirs and can currently be found
throughout the Arkansas River in Tulsa. Two zebra mussel adults were found in Grand
Lake in 2006 but no veligers have been found there to date. Zebra mussels have been
discovered on several boats by marina personnel who prevented the infested boats
from being launched in the lakes. Adult zebra mussels were recently found in Hudson
and W.R. Holloway lakes in 2009. Adult mussels have also been found in Lake Texoma
and have become well distributed throughout the lake. Considered a high priority
species, zebra mussels represent a serious threat to Oklahoma's aquatic resources and
deserve immediate management action.
Quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis): Quagga mussels are native to Caspian Sea
drainage in Eurasia. They most likely arrived as stowaways in the ballast water of
ocean going ships. They were discovered in the Great Lakes region in September
1989. The quagga mussel is related to the zebra mussel but was not identified as a
distinct species until 1991. Quagga mussels like silty or sandy lake bottoms. They can
live in waters ranging from warm and shallow to deep and cold. They are also able to
tolerate somewhat salty water. A quagga mussel feeds all year, even in winter when
zebra mussels are dormant. In addition, it may have the same potential as the zebra
mussel to clog water intakes. Quagga mussels can easily survive overland transport
while attached to boat hulls or in live wells, engine cooling systems, or bait buckets.
Quagga mussels were recently found attached to a boat preparing to but prevented
from launching at Eisenhower State Park on Lake Texoma. To date, no other reports of
quagga mussels have been made in Oklahoma, but it is considered a priority species
because of the potential for infestation and environmental damage.
Exotic waterflea (Daphnia lumholtzi): Native to Africa, Australia, and India, this
Cladoceran species was first discovered in 1990 in Texas. It has since been found in
several Midwestern states including Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Havel and
Shurin (2004) reported D. lumholtzi from Atoka, Broken Bow, Coalgate, Copan, Fort
Gibson, Grand, Greenleaf, Hugo, Humphreys, Keystone, Murray, Pine Creek, Raymond
Gary, Robert S. Kerr, Sardis, Texoma, Tenkiller, and Waurika reservoirs in Oklahoma.
The continuing discovery of the organism in new locations could be due to
contaminated stockings of fish through commercial trade. At the same time, the close
proximity of affected reservoirs might lead to the conclusion that it may have spread by
recreational boating from infested reservoirs (Benson et al. 2005). Analyses of preinvasion zooplankton communities indicate that D. lumholtzi may be invading reservoirs
in which native Daphnia species are rare. While the long-term effects of the invasion of
D. lumholtzi are unknown, it has the potential to dominate late summer zooplankton
communities in reservoirs (Dzialowski et al. 2000).
New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum): Native to New Zealand, this
species was discovered in North America in 1987 and has rapidly spread throughout the
western United States. It is a parthenogenetic livebearer with a high reproductive
potential. Mature New Zealand mudsnails (NZMS) average 5 mm in length; juveniles
are much smaller, making them difficult to notice on gear. Snail populations can reach
14
densities greater than 100,000/m2 in suitable habitat. The highest recorded densities
reported are 800,000/m2 in Lake Zurich, Switzerland, where this species colonized the
entire lake in less than seven years (Richards 2002). To date, few data have been
reported or research conducted on the impacts of the animal on native
macroinvertebrate populations or aquatic ecosystems.
Concern about the potential impacts of the NZMS on native species, fisheries and
aquatic ecosystems in the western United States has been generated by the rapid
spread of this species. NZMS degrade habitat with their high reproductive capacity and
the subsequent impacts on invertebrate food sources. Its spread into new systems is
considered to be primarily human-caused and unintentional transport by people is
probably the primary vector for the spread of NZMS. The snail clings to the boots of
anglers wading in infested streams. The NZMS has not been reported in Oklahoma, but
is considered a priority species because of the late 2004 introduction into Colorado and
the highly mobile nature of trout anglers.
Rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus): The native range of the rusty crayfish is
Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. However, in recent years its distribution has expanded
because of the use of live crayfish as bait by anglers. They are more aggressive than
other native crayfish, better able to avoid fish predation, and can harm native fish
populations by eating their eggs and young. They can displace native crayfish,
hybridize with them, and graze on and eliminate beneficial aquatic plants. Large
populations can adversely impact native plant populations (Lodge et al. 2000). As a
result of its voracious appetite, it competes with other aquatic organisms for food.
Eradicating established infestations is currently impossible. The rusty crayfish has not
been found in Oklahoma, but it has been transplanted to new waters in neighboring
states where self-sustaining populations have become established. The species
warrants attention.
Nutria (Myocastor coypus): The nutria is a large semi-aquatic rodent smaller than a
beaver but larger than a muskrat.
Nutria are strict vegetarians consuming
approximately 25 percent of their weight daily. Nutria predominately feed on the base of
plant stems and dig for roots and rhizomes in the winter. Native to South America,
nutria were imported into the United States in the 1930’s for fur farms. They were
released, either intentionally or accidentally, in the Louisiana marshes and soon after,
feral populations were established near the Gulf Coast. Nutria continued to expand
their range from there as they were trapped and transplanted into marshes from Port
Arthur, Texas to the Mississippi River. Rapid population growth followed for several
years thereafter and reports of agricultural damage increased. In 1958, nutria were
taken off the list of protected wildlife. They have been found in far southeast Oklahoma
where their impact on aquatic environments is primarily by reduction of native
vegetation in marsh and riverine areas.
Golden Alga (Prymnesium parvum): Harmful algal blooms are ubiquitous world wide
in marine and freshwater systems. Texas has documented fish kills from golden alga in
inland waters since 1985. The spread of golden alga in Texas and resulting fish kills
have had major ecological and economic ramifications. A fish kill in the upper Red
River arm of Lake Texoma attributed to golden alga occurred in January 2004. A
15
golden alga-related fish kill in Altus City Lake was documented in August 2004. Fish
kills in the upper Red River arm of Lake Texoma occurred in February 2006 and again
in March 2007. Given the history of reoccurrence of golden alga-related fish kills in
Texas, it is anticipated that such kills will reoccur in infested waters and likely spread to
waters not currently experiencing kills related to golden alga.
ODWC developed the Oklahoma Harmful Algal Bloom Response Plan to coordinate a
timely interagency response to harmful algal blooms (Appendix C). In addition, ODWC
is currently funding research conducted by the University of Oklahoma on the toxicology
of the prymnesin toxin to various sport fishes and zooplankton and the ecological
interactions of golden alga with phytoplankton and zooplankton communities in Lake
Texoma. The University of Oklahoma is also currently monitoring golden alga
abundance on Lake Texoma and investigating physical, chemical, and ecological
triggers to blooms and toxin production. A proposed expansion of these efforts on a
statewide basis would identify lakes at risk and focus on efforts to control the spread to
currently uninfested water bodies.
Didymo (Didymosphenia geminata): Didymo is a diatom which is native to the
northern hemisphere. Until recent years, it occurred at low levels in pristine lakes and
streams but has become invasive, forming dense mats in many streams in North
America. In close proximity to Oklahoma, Didymo has been found in Colorado and the
White River in Arkansas. This invasive species attaches to rocks and plants in
streambeds and may impact freshwater fish, aquatic plants, and important aquatic
insects. Didymo can completely smother rocks and plants and reduce the area of clean
substrate and interstitial spaces on which fish and their prey depend for spawning and
feeding. It also tends to outcompete native algal species, many of which are food for
aquatic insects, which are the main diet source of native stream fishes. Didymo mats
have become so thick in some areas it became impossible for anglers to fish. Didymo
is particularly fond of cold tailwaters and, as such, poses a particular threat to the trout
fisheries in the lower Illinois and Lower Mountain Fork Rivers. Anglers have been the
principle means of spread. Didymo was found in the Lower Mountain Fork River in April
2009 by ODWC and was officially confirmed by algal experts at the OU Biological
Survey. This introduction was most likely caused inadvertently by trout anglers from
Arkansas. Trout anglers who fish streams in the western United States and Arkansas,
and return to fish the lower Illinois and/or the lower Mountain Fork rivers must take
precautions to avoid spreading Didymo to state waters.
Viral hemorrhagic septicemia: Viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) has historically
been considered as the most serious viral disease of salmonids reared in European
freshwater environments. VHS has been associated with marine finfish species, and
most recently has become an emerging disease of freshwater fish in the Great Lakes
region of the United States and Canada. VHS is an aquatic rhabidovirus and is shed in
the urine, feces, and sexual fluids. Infested waters include clinically ill fish and
asymptomatic carriers. Transmission can occur through the water or by contact.
Prior to 2003, isolates of the VHS virus were limited in North America to saltwater finfish
from the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, including Chinook and Coho salmon, Pacific
herring, Atlantic herring and cod. VHS was first detected in the Great Lakes region in
16
the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario, in 2005, and was subsequently detected in an archived
2003 sample from Lake St. Clair. VHS virus also was detected in Lake St. Clair in 2005
and in Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and the St. Lawrence River in 2006 in a variety of fish
species. Since 2005, the list of species known to be affected by VHS has risen to more
than 40, including a number of ecologically and recreationally important fish.
Retail sales and live release of baitfish into the wild represent an area of concern for the
potential introduction and/or spread of VHS. Fish belonging to the cyprinid family and
other species are collected from the Great Lakes and used as bait for sport fisheries
around the U.S. Baitfish from Canada are also routinely exported to the U.S.
Additionally, some aquaculture producers collect baitfish brood stock from the Great
Lakes to produce commercial baitfish in their facilities. The destinations and numbers
of baitfish moved are not well documented, and regulation of this sector is inconsistent
among States, or lacking entirely. Live sale of fish by commercial fishers is also a
concern. Fish from Lake Erie are sold live in Ontario, Canada for transport to pond
aquaculture facilities in the Midwest U.S. The species, volume and destinations of
these fish are not well documented.
Recent federal restrictions on interstate movement of fish from the Great Lakes region
are aimed at slowing the spread of VHS. The virus has not been detected in Oklahoma
but monitoring and disease-free certification of imported fish should be a priority.
Largemouth Bass Virus: Largemouth Bass Virus (LMBV) is one of more than 100
naturally occurring viruses that affect fish but not warm-blooded animals. The origin is
unknown, but it is of the Iridovirus family, genus Ranavirus. LMBV is related to a virus
found in frogs and other amphibians and nearly identical to a virus isolated in some fish
imported to the U.S. for the aquarium trade. Although other species of fish can serve as
carriers, symptoms of disease have been evident in largemouth bass only. The mode
of transmission and disease triggers are unknown. The disease appears to differentially
affect the larger individuals in a population and kills have resulted in negative impacts to
sport fisheries. However, long-term impacts to largemouth bass fisheries have been
negligible.
LMBV fish kills have been reported throughout the southeast and Midwest United
States. Although LMBV-related fish kills have been suspected on a number of
Oklahoma reservoirs, LMBV has been verified as the causative agent of kills only on
Tenkiller in 2000 and Wes Watkins reservoirs in 2005. Since 2000, 26 lakes have been
tested for LMBV with positive results found at Arbuckle, Eucha, Eufaula, Ft. Gibson,
Grand, Hudson, Keystone, Konawa, Lawtonka, McGee Creek, Murray, Okemah,
Oologah, Sardis, Skiatook, Sooner, Tenkiller, Texoma, Thunderbird, Webbers Falls and
Wes Watkins. Lakes Arcadia, Bixhoma, Broken Bow, Crowder and Holdenville have so
far tested negative for LMBV. Because of the short-term impact to economically
valuable largemouth bass fisheries, and the vast amount of negative publicity generated
by such kills, LMBV warrants attention in this plan.
Spring Viremia of Carp: Spring viremia of carp (SVC) is a contagious and potentially
fatal viral disease affecting fish. As its name implies, SVC may be seen in carp in the
spring season. However, SVC may also be seen in other seasons (especially in the fall)
17
and in other fish species including goldfish and the European wells catfish. Until
recently, SVC had only been reported in Europe and the Middle East. The first cases of
SVC reported in the United States were in Spring 2002 in cultivated ornamental
common carp (Koi) and wild common carp. The number of North American fish species
susceptible to SVC is not yet known. The first signs of SVC disease in fish may be a
change in behavior. The diseased fish may breathe and move more slowly, form groups
in slow–flowing water near the pond bank, and lie on their side at the pond bottom. On
the outside of a fish with SVC, the skin and gills may appear dark red, the eyes may
bulge outward, the belly may be swollen, and bloody mucus may hang from the vent.
On the inside of a fish with SVC, a lot of fluid may be in the belly cavity and internal
organs, blood in the swim bladder, and reddening and swelling of the gut. However, not
all fish showing these signs necessarily have SVC, as these same signs may also be
seen in many other diseases. Those fish that don't die from SVC may recover and
appear healthy, but these fish actually may remain infected with the virus and continue
to shed and spread the virus to other fish. Because the SVC virus may remain hidden
in infected fish, the disease is difficult to eliminate from a site. Diagnosis of the SVC
virus in fish can be confirmed through virus isolation and other sophisticated diagnostic
tests done by an approved laboratory.
The spread of SVC may occur through contact with water contaminated with the
infected fish's feces, urine, or mucus. The virus may be spread through contaminated
equipment, fish parasites, predatory birds, and on the outside of an infected fish's eggs.
Once SVC is established at a site, it may be difficult to eradicate because of virus–
infected carrier fish. It may be necessary to destroy all aquatic life in a pond to
eliminate the disease from the site. Although complete eradication is difficult, SVC can
likely be controlled and contained within high–risk zones through surveillance and better
management practices, including strict biosecurity procedures. People may transmit the
virus from place to place on their clothing, footwear, equipment, etc, but the virus does
not cause disease in humans.
SVC has not been confirmed in Oklahoma; however. in 2006 a Koi retailer received a
shipment of fish that exhibited many of the classic SVC symptoms. The merchant
destroyed the dead and dying fish but released those that were still alive into Lake
Hefner in Oklahoma City. The popularity of Koi and the regular importation of these fish
from other parts of the U.S. and abroad, warrant careful attention and inclusion of SVC
in this plan.
Whirling Disease (Myxobolus cerebralis): Whirling disease is a metazoan parasite
that penetrates the head and spinal cartilage of fingerling trout where it multiplies very
rapidly, putting pressure on the organ of equilibrium. This causes the fish to swim
erratically (whirl), and have difficulty feeding and avoiding predators. In severe
infections, the disease can cause high rates of mortality in young-of-the-year fish.
Those that survive until the cartilage hardens to bone can live a normal life span, but
are marred by skeletal deformities. Fish can, however reproduce without passing on
the parasite to their offspring.
The minute whirling disease organism, native to the Eurasian continent, was introduced
into North American waters in the late 1950s. So far its severe damage has been
18
primarily to wild rainbow populations, although many other salmonid species can
become infected, with or without clinical disease. Brown trout salmo trutta, also a
European import, become infected but rarely suffer clinical disease. Under some
circumstances infected brown trout suffer some mortality, but they always insure the
survival of the parasite. Regardless of species, when each infected fish dies, many
thousands to millions of the parasite spores are released to the water. The organism is
virtually indestructible. Spores can withstand freezing and desiccation, and can survive
in a stream for 20 to 30 years. Eventually, it must be ingested by its alternate host, the
tubifex worm Tubifex tubifex, where the spore takes on the form that once again will
infect trout fry.
The parasite that causes whirling disease will continue to spread to drainages now
clean, since it is so easily and unknowingly transported by animals, birds and humans.
The ODWC purchases trout for stocking in public waters from a variety of out-of-state
commercial producers. Winter trout fisheries in various private waters, also supported
by purchasing trout from out-of-state suppliers, have become popular. Although
whirling disease has not been reported from Oklahoma, this disease is listed in this plan
to help ensure that trout continue to be purchased from certified disease-free suppliers.
19
Non-indigenous Aquatic Plants
A draft list of non-indigenous aquatic plants in Oklahoma is included in Appendix A. This
list is incomplete as information on non-indigenous aquatic plants in Oklahoma is
somewhat limited. The following ANS species are considered of special concern in
Oklahoma: Alligatorweed, Eurasian Watermilfoil, Hydrilla, Purple Loosestrife, Salvinia,
and Water Hyacinth. Currently, Hydrilla is considered a high priority species. A
discussion of each species follows.
Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata): Hydrilla is the most damaging aquatic weed in the
United States. It was imported into the United States from Asia in the early 1950s for
use in aquariums, and was likely introduced into the wild near Tampa and Miami,
Florida. It was popular in the aquarium trade until Federal regulations banned its
interstate sale and movement. Distribution in the United States now ranges from
Connecticut southward along the coast to Texas. The plant is also present in California
and Washington. Several inland states (Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tennessee
and Arizona) also have populations.
Hydrilla plants produce long stems with whorled leaves and are profusely branched at
the water surface. It thrives in low light conditions and can be found in streams, ponds,
lakes and reservoirs. Reproduction is by fragmentation, seeds, tubers, and turions.
Hydrilla is most likely to spread when plant fragments are carried on boat trailers into
new habitat.
Hydrilla causes major problems with water use. In drainage and irrigation canals, it
greatly reduces flow and causes clogging, which can result in flooding and damage to
canal banks, structures, and pumps. In utility cooling reservoirs, hydrilla can disrupt
flows necessary for adequate water-cooling. Hydrilla can interfere with recreational and
commercial vessel navigation. In addition to interfering with boating by fisherman and
water skiers, hydrilla hampers swimming, displaces native vegetation communities, and
can damage sport fish populations. The economic consequences of aquatic weed
infestations can be staggering. Annual expenditures to control aquatic weeds in the
United States (most of them non-natives, such as hydrilla) are reported to be $100
million (OTA, 1993). Three hydrilla infestations are known to occur in Oklahoma
(Arbuckle, Murray and Sooner reservoirs), although surveillance efforts have been
limited.
Giant Salvinia (Salvinia molesta): The number one noxious aquatic plant in the world,
Giant Salvinia is a perennial, aquatic fern, from South America which is very common in
the water garden and aquarium industries. In favorable environments, plants may be
expected to double in volume within a week. Giant salvinia is a small, floating plant with
round to oblong, light green leaves that have hair-like projections on their surface.
Submerged leaves function as modified roots. The plant prefers shallow, fertile waters
to moist soil areas. It can be found in ponds, lakes and slow moving streams.
Reproduction is by fragmentation and spores. It forms extensive mats that can
completely cover water surfaces resulting in the degradation of natural habitats by
shading native plants, reducing available dissolved oxygen, and creating large amounts
of decaying plant material. The mats are reported to be up to three feet thick, which
20
hinders management by chemical control, and the weed reproduces so rapidly that
infestations quickly become impossible to eradicate. It is known to over-winter easily by
blanketing sister plants. Giant Salvinia can clog water intakes, which interferes with
irrigation, drainage, and electrical generation. In the United States it has been observed
in Arizona, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
California. Its expected range includes portions of southern and western Oklahoma
(USGS, 2000). Within a year of its 1998 discovery in the United States, Giant Salvinia
was found in six states and over a dozen watersheds. Human transport will spread
Giant Salvinia locally, with plants adhering to and carried overland on anything entering
infested waters, including boats, trailers, vehicular wheels, intakes and gear and other
plants. It has been found for sale in a number of nurseries in Oklahoma, mostly for use
in water gardens. The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry
(ODAFF) has issued stop-sell orders to all vendors and confiscated and destroyed
plants. However, shipments of plants from other states where Salvinia infestations are
unchecked still occur and local nurseries report receiving “hitchhiking” Salvinia regularly.
Internet sale and shipments of the plant continue unchecked.
Alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides): Alligatorweed is a member of the
pigweed family that has spread quickly throughout the southern United States. Several
members in this genus are readily available in the ornamental trade. It produces white,
clover-like flowers on hollow stems supporting oppositely arranged leaves. The plant
can grow in most aquatic environments from fully submerged to moist soil. It
reproduces by fragmentation and seed. This plant is difficult to control once
established.
Alligatorweed easily displaces native species by producing thick
monocultures. It is established in Oklahoma in the Chouteau and Newt Graham pools
of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation system and in several homeowners’
association ponds on Spring Creek in Oklahoma City. Alligatorweed flea beetles
Agasicles hygrophila were imported into Oklahoma in 2005 as a bio-control experiment
on the Spring Creek chain of lakes. Results were marginal in 2005, but 2006 releases
reduced infestations by as much as 50% on some of the ponds while in others, the
plants were reduced by over 75%. Oklahoma winters are likely severe enough to
prevent over-wintering of the beetles so annual releases will be necessary to maintain
control.
Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria): A showy wetland plant, purple loosestrife is
popular in the ornamental trade because of the brilliant purple spike of flowers. It is still
sold in some states, although 24 states, including Oklahoma, have listed it as a noxious
weed and prohibit its sale. It grows up to 8 feet tall in thick stands. It has leaves that
are arranged opposite along the stem and are lance shaped. It was originally imported
from Eurasia in the early 1800s for its medicinal value and beautiful flowers. It inhabits
damp terrestrial sites often bordering bodies of water. Reproduction is primarily by seed
with each plant producing up to 2 million seeds. It can crowd out native wetland plants
and has been spreading across the United States for decades. Estimated losses are
$45 million per year in control costs and forage loss (ATTRA, 1997). It is found in 42 of
the contiguous states, and could invade the remaining six. It is present in Oklahoma
with a persistent stand at Guthrie City Lake.
21
Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum): The most problematic nonindigenous plant in northern and central United States. It is a submersed, rooted
perennial with branching stems that fill the water column. It has leaves divided into
feathery, threadlike leaflets. It inhabits reservoirs, lakes, ponds and back water areas.
Reproduction is primarily by fragmentation and it is capable of establishing new colonies
when disturbed by recreational activity, and it is easily transported to new waterbodies
through fouling of boat props and trailers. The species has also been introduced
through the aquarium trade and water gardens. Once established in a waterbody, it can
quickly grow into dense mats that shade out native plants, reduce fish habitat and
recreational use. It is present in Oklahoma in several reservoirs (Fuqua, Longmire),
many smaller city water supply lakes and numerous farm ponds.
Water Hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes): Water hyacinth is present in all Gulf Coast
states as well as California. Its presence has caused massive problems with
navigation, water based recreation, canal systems, and pumping stations as it can
completely cover lakes with floating mats that become dislodged and stuck in water
intakes. Although the risk of water hyacinth overwintering in Oklahoma is considered
small due to cold winter air temperatures, its continued use in water gardens poses a
threat that it will adapt to colder temperatures, or become established in thermal refugia.
Water hyacinth has been found in Lake Eufaula, Soldier Creek in Midwest City and
Landsbrook Lake in Oklahoma City, all probable releases from water gardens.
22
D. Goal
The goal of the Oklahoma ANS Management Plan is to:
Minimize the harmful ecological, economic, and social impact of ANS through
preventing the introduction and managing the population growth and dispersal of
ANS into, within, and from Oklahoma.
The goal will be achieved through implementation of a plan that:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
emphasizes prevention of introductions;
requires a risk assessment and review for all aquatic non-indigenous species prior to
their importation, transport, or use in Oklahoma;
allows for early detection;
includes development of contingency plans;
permits appropriate and timely response to new and existing populations;
protects and restores native plant and animal communities;
provides for access to accurate up-to-date distribution and management information;
incorporates education and research elements;
recommends funding levels adequate for effective implementation;
produces agency collaboration through an invasive species council;
facilitates inter-jurisdictional coordination with state, federal and tribal agencies;
seeks cooperative solutions with the private sector and user groups.
It is not possible to address all potential invaders, their impacts, and the constraints and
contingencies that may develop. Consequently, this plan is intended to be adaptable to
changing circumstances. As a result, continual review of the plan is imperative to use
the most up-to-date information and procedures to limit the spread of ANS both into and
within Oklahoma.
23
E. Existing Authorities and Programs
The State of Oklahoma currently has a limited number of statutory and regulatory
authorities aimed at prevention and control of ANS. Existing statutes and regulations
were drafted and passed with the intent of dealing with specific concerns as they arose
and were not intended to be proactive in dealing with the threats of invasive species.
State statutory authority pertaining to ANS is spread across several agencies and
coordinated efforts to date have been lacking. One objective of Oklahoma’s ANS
management plan is to identify gaps in existing statutes and regulations and to
recommend development of new legislation to address shortcomings in existing
authorities and programs.
STATE
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC)
The mission of the ODWC is the management, protection and enhancement of wildlife
resources and habitat for the scientific, educational, recreational, aesthetic and
economic benefits to present and future generation of citizens and visitors to Oklahoma.
Existing statutory authorities are inadequate to protect Oklahoma’s aquatic resources
from invasive species and to help the agency meet its mission. Existing authorities
include:
The Wildlife Conservation Commission will constitute a policymaking board for the
restoration, conservation, and management of wildlife in Oklahoma (Oklahoma Statute
Title 29, §§3-103A, 7-801A). A license is needed to engage in the private commercial
production of catfish, minnows, fingerlings, fish, frogs, or other aquatic species
(Oklahoma Statute Title 29, §4-102A). A license is also needed to harvest, sell, buy,
ship, or transport minnows into or out of Oklahoma (Oklahoma Statute Title 29, §4115A, B). No person may transport or sell non-game fish outside Oklahoma without a
commercial fishing license and a special permit for transporting or selling the fish
(Oklahoma Statute Title 29, §4-105A). Violations are punishable by a fine of between
$25 and $200, imprisonment for up to 30 days, or by both (Oklahoma Statute Title 29,
§§4-102E, 4-105B, 4-115C).
The importation into the State and/or the possession of the following exotic fish or their
eggs is prohibited (Oklahoma Administrative Code §800:20-1-2):
(1)
(2)
Walking Catfish: The Walking Catfish, (Clarius batrachus) and other members of
the exotic catfish family Claridae, including but not limited to species of the genera
Clarias, Heteropneustes, Gymnallables, Channallabes, and Heterobranchus are
prohibited. Any live specimens of Walking Catfish or other Claridae species within
the boundaries of the State of Oklahoma are contraband and subject to seizure by
the Department of Wildlife Conservation.
Grass carp: Release of grass carp, also known as white amur or Chinese carp
(Ctenopharyngodon idella) or their hybrids into public waters is prohibited in
accordance with 29 O.S., Section 6-504. Importation, possession and introduction
of grass carp or their hybrids for the purpose of stocking private waters is
permitted.
24
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
Bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix).
Silver carp (Aristichthys nobilis).
Black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus).
Boney-tongue group: Osteoglossum spp., and Arapaima spp.
Piranha group: Serrasalmus spp., Pygocentrus spp., Rooseveltiella spp., Catoprion
spp., Hydrocynus spp., and Salminus spp.
Electric Eel (Electrophorus electricus).
Electric catfish (Malapterus electricus).
Gar-pike topminnow (Belonesox belizanus).
Snakehead groups: Opicephalus spp., and Channa spp.
Pavon or Peacock Bass (Chichla temensis and Chichia ocellaris).
Parasitic South American Catfish group (Candiru), genera & species of the
Trichomycteridae family. Vandellia spp., Tridens spp., and Pyqidium spp.
Freshwater Stingray group: Paratrygon spp., Potomotrygon spp., and Disceus spp.
Houri (from South America): Macrodon spp., and Hoplias spp.
Rudd and rudd hybrids (Scardinius spp.).
Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis).
The following species shall be permitted by application and written letter of authorization
from the Department of Wildlife Conservation for research purpose only (Oklahoma
Administrative Code §800:20-1-2):
(1)
(2)
Alewives (Aloso pseudoharengus).
Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax).
Currently, no permits are active.
The use of Tilapia is restricted as follows (Oklahoma Administrative Code §800:20-1-2):
(1)
(2)
(3)
The sale and use of all Tilapia species as bait is prohibited.
The stocking of all Tilapia species in any heated-water reservoir including Sooner,
Konawa and Boomer Reservoirs is prohibited.
This shall not interfere with the sale of dead and/or processed Tilapia for human
food or the sale or transport of Tilapia species for the purpose of aquatic
vegetation control in privately owned ponds.
A noxious aquatic plant is any aquatic plant that may cause injury to the environment of
Oklahoma and is declared noxious by regulation of the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation
Commission (Oklahoma Statute Title 29, §6-601B). It is unlawful for any person to
import, transport, place, or cultivate any noxious aquatic plant or seed in Oklahoma
waters (Oklahoma Statute Title 29, §6-601A). Violations are misdemeanors, punishable
by a fine of between $10 and $100, imprisonment for up to 30 days, or by both
(Oklahoma Statute Title 29, §6-601C). In addition to the provided criminal penalties, the
commission may enforce the provisions by injunctive action (Oklahoma Statute Title 29,
§6-601D). The following plants, seeds or plant parts are hereby declared to be noxious:
(1)
(2)
Azolla pinnata - Mosquito Fern (aka - Water Velvet, Water Fern)
Caulerpa taxifolia - Caulerpa (aka - Mediterranean Clone of Caulerpa)
25
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
Eichhornia azure - Anchored Water Hyacinth (aka - Rooted Water Hyacinth, Blue
Water Hyacinth, Saw-petal Water Hyacinth)
Hydrilla verticillata - Hydrilla (aka - Florida Elodea, Star Vine, Oxygen Plant,
Oxygen Weed)
Hygrophila polysperma - Hygro (aka - Miramar Weed, Green Hygro, Oriental
Ludwigia, East Indian Hygrophila)
Ipomoea aquatica - Water Spinach (aka - Swamp Morning Glory, Chinese Water
Spinach, Water Bindweed, Aquatic Morning Glory)
Lagarosiphon major - African Elodea (aka - Oxygen Weed)
Limnophila species - Ambulia (aka - Asian Marshweed, Limno, Red Ambulia,
Indian Ambulia)
Lythrum salicaria - Purple Loosestrife (aka - Loosestrife)
Marsilea quadrifolia - Marsilea (aka - European Waterclover, Four-leaf Clover
Fern, Water Fern, Water Clover, Hairy Pepperwort)
Marsilea mutica - Australian Waterclover (aka - Varigated Water-clover, Nardoo)
Marsilea minuta - Waterclover
Melaleuca quinquenervia - Paperbark Tree (aka - Melaleuca, Cajeput, Punk)
Monochoria hastata - Cat=s Claw (aka - Monochoria)
Ottellia alismoides - Duck Lettuce
Sagittaria sagittifolia - Japanese Arrowhead (aka - Hawaiian Arrowhead, Common
Arrowhead, Chinese Arrowhead)
Salvinia spp. - all giant and common salvinia species - (aka - Salvinia, Butterfly
Fern, Water Fern, Water Moss, Water Velvet, Karibaweed, Koi Kandy, Water
Spangles, Floating Fern, South American Pond Fern)
Alternanthera spp. - Alligatorweed and congeneric species (aka - Alligator-weed,
Chaff Flower, lilacina, roseafolia)
Solanum tampicense - Wetland Nightshade
Sparganium erectum - Exotic Bur-reed
Glossostigma diandrum - Mud Mat
The following species are classified as "Species to Watch" and are not currently listed
as noxious aquatic plants. However, they are aquatic plants whose impact on the
Oklahoma environment is presently unknown, and therefore, may be considered for
inclusion on the noxious aquatic plant list (above) as additional information becomes
available to, and as deemed necessary by, the Department of Wildlife Conservation:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Colocasia esculenta - Wild Taro (aka - Green Taro, Elephant Ear, Taro, Dasheen)
Egeria densa - Brazilian Waterweed (aka - Common Waterweed, Brazilian Elodea,
Anacharis, Oxygen Weed, Elodea)
Eichhornia crassipes - Floating Water Hyacinth (aka - Water-hyacinth)
Hydrocleys nymphoides - Water-poppy (aka - Hydrocleys, Hydrocleis)
Iris pseudacorus - Yellow Iris (aka - Yellow Flag, Yellow Flag Iris)
Ludwigia hexapetala - Uruguay Seedbox (aka - Water Primrose)
Myriophyllum spicatum - Eurasian Watermilfoil (aka - European Watermilfoil,
Watermilfoil, Fox Tail)
Myriophyllum aquaticum - Parrotfeather (aka - Parrot=s Feather, Watermilfoil,
Golden Myriophyllum)
Najas minor - Brittle Naiad (aka - Slender Naiad, Spiny leaf Naiad)
26
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
Nymphoides peltata - Yellow Floating Heart (aka - Floating Heart)
Panicum repens - Torpedo Grass (aka - Torpedograss)
Pistia stratiotes - Water Lettuce
Spirodela punctata - Dotted Duckweed (aka - Punctate Duckweed, Spotted
Duckweed, Giant Duckweed)
(14) Trapa natans - Water Chestnut (aka - European Water Chestnut)
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (ODAFF)
ODAFF is the agency charged with licensing aquaculture facilities. The private
commercial production of fish, frogs, or other aquatic species OAC 35:50-1-1 prohibits
the importation or exportation of minnows and other fish species that are subject to the
provisions of Sections 4-105, 4-115, and 7-602 of Oklahoma Statute Title 29. ODAFF
conducts at least one inspection every two (2) years of each licensed aquaculture
operation. It is unlawful for any person to operate a concentrated animal feeding
operation without first obtaining a license from the State Board of Agriculture (Oklahoma
Statute Title 2, §9-208).
ODAFF licenses all plant nursery operations (Oklahoma Statute Title 2, §2-3-32).
Inspections of these facilities by authorized agents of the State Board of Agriculture are
provided for under Oklahoma Statute Title 2, §2-3-32.2. Administrative Code 35:30-376 states that authorized agents have the authority to inspect any plant or plant product
for the purpose of export. Under OAC 35:30-37-10, it is unlawful to knowingly
propagate, sell, or offer for sale any aquatic plant pest, as listed under OAC 800:20-3-2.
Under Oklahoma Statute Title 2, §2-3-32.3 the State Board of Agriculture, upon finding
a plant pest at any facility, shall notify the owner in writing and issue a stop sale until
treatment or destruction of the plant pest is completed. No damages shall be awarded
to the owner for loss of infested or infected trees, plants, shrubs, or other plant material
destroyed as a result of an order of the Board.
ODAFF licenses pesticide applicators under Oklahoma Administrative Code 35:30-171(8) and provides testing for such licenses under 35:30-17-4.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Under Oklahoma Statute 252:611-3-1, any entity conducting an activity which may
result in any discharge into, or pollution or alteration of the waters of the State of
Oklahoma, shall first obtain a water quality certification from the DEQ.
Oklahoma State Statute 27A § 1-3-101 gives the DEQ the authority to issue swimming
advisories. In conjunction with this requirement, DEQ has developed a Blue-Green
Algae Response Plan to provide guidance for Public Drinking Water Supplies of the
State.
The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) established primary and secondary
drinking water standards for the nation’s water supplies (40 CFR §141 and 40 CFR
§143). These standards are contained in the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ) “Regulations Governing Operation of Public Water Supply Systems”
27
(Oklahoma Administration Code Chapters 626,631,652,690,and 710) as maximum
allowable levels (primary standards), and recommended allowable (secondary
standards) levels. DEQ Water Quality Division (DEQ WQD) is the primacy agency with
regards to drinking water in Oklahoma. The DEQ WQD has public supply district
engineers that manage the drinking water systems within the State.
Oklahoma State Statute 27A § 2-3-101 F gives the DEQ authority to investigate
environmental issues for the State. This is carried out by the Environmental Complaints
and Local Services Division (ECLS DEQ).
Oklahoma State Statute 27A § Supp. 207, Section 2-4-201 gives the DEQ the authority
to acquire, operate, and maintain laboratories to analyze samples to obtain factual data
to support any order, permit, function, or program of the department… This authority
provides the funding and maintenance for the State Environmental Laboratory. This
authority is utilized to maintain the Toxics in Reservoirs program which monitors toxics
in fish and sets criteria for the DEQ to issue fish consumption advisories in accordance
with Oklahoma Water Quality Standards. This authority is also utilized to maintain the
Bio-trend program which collects and manages historical and current fish assemblage
data across the State.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB)
The OWRB has the following jurisdictional areas of environmental responsibility under
Oklahoma Statute Title 27 §1-3-101:
OWRB is the lead agency for lakes eligible for funding under Section 314 of the federal
Clean Water Act or other applicable sections of the federal Clean Water Act or other
subsequent state and federal clean lakes programs; administration of a state program
for assessing, monitoring, studying and restoring Oklahoma lakes with administration to
include, but not be limited to, receipt and expenditure of funds from federal, state and
private sources for clean lakes; and implementation of a volunteer monitoring program
to assess and monitor state water resources, provided such funds from federal Clean
Water Act sources are administered and disbursed by the Office of the Secretary of
Environment; and Statewide water quality standards and their accompanying use
support assessment protocols, anti-degradation policy and implementation, and policies
generally affecting Oklahoma Water Quality Standards application and implementation
including but not limited to mixing zones, low flows and variances or any modification or
change thereof pursuant to Section 1085.30 of Title 82 of the Oklahoma Statutes.
Under Oklahoma Statutes Title 82 Chapter 14 Section 1085.2, the OWRB is hereby
designated as the state agency to administer, receive, and manage all programs and
funds associated with Section 314 or other applicable sections of the Federal Clean
Water Act or other subsequent state and federal clean lakes programs having the
purposes of assessing, monitoring, studying and restoring Oklahoma lakes, provided
such funds from Federal Clean Water Act sources are administered and disbursed by
the Office of the Secretary of Environment. In conducting the clean lakes program, the
OWRB shall employ a cooperative agreement with the Oklahoma Conservation
Commission (OCC) with regard to lake watersheds. The OCC may cooperate with the
28
OWRB in providing land use inventory/assessment and stream monitoring portion of the
clean lakes program. The OWRB may enter into cooperative agreements with other
federal, state and local agencies as necessary. Any Phase II Clean Lakes projects
which require watershed implementation of non-point source pollution control practices
shall be carried out by the OCC.
Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC)
Under Oklahoma Statute Title 27A O.S. § 3-2-106, the OCC has been designated to
“act as the management agency having jurisdiction over and responsibility for directing
NPS pollution prevention programs outside the jurisdiction or control of cities or towns in
Oklahoma. The Commission, otherwise, shall be responsible for all identified non-point
source categories except silviculture, urban storm water runoff and industrial runoff.”
The OCC will “monitor, evaluate and assess waters of the state to determine the
condition of streams and rivers impacted by nonpoint source pollution. In carrying out
this area of responsibility, the Conservation Commission shall serve as the technical
lead agency for nonpoint source pollution categories as defined in Section 319 of the
Federal Clean Water Act or other subsequent federal or state nonpoint source
programs.” In addition, the OCC will administer the Blue Thumb volunteer monitoring
and education program and “provide assistance to the Oklahoma Water Resources
Board on lake projects through stream and river monitoring, assessing watershed
activities impacting lake water quality, and assisting in the development of a watershed
management plan.”
FEDERAL
Federal regulations pertaining to the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species
are fragmented and incomplete. At least 20 agencies currently work at researching and
controlling invasive species with no clear authority to prohibit or regulate the import of all
classes of invasives or to regulate pathways for movement of invasives among states.
Federal laws that apply directly to the introduction of invasive species include the Lacey
Act, the Federal Noxious Weed Act, the Federal Seed Act, the Federal Plant Protection
Act of 2000, the Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990,
and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. Other Federal Laws indirectly promote
the control of non-indigenous and invasive species by providing direction or guidance to
properly manage public lands and programs. Therefore, the control of invasives is
indirectly authorized. For example, the Endangered Species Act could require controls
if an ANS was shown to threaten the survival of a federally listed species. The
Endangered Species Act could also have indirect application if an ANS was shown to
threaten the survival of a federally listed species. A description of federal agencies with
programs specific to Oklahoma ANS follows.
29
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
The USFWS provides federal funding for implementation of state and regional ANS
management plans that have been approved by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task
Force (ANSTF). One of the major USFWS efforts on ANS is the 100th Meridian
Initiative. The goals of this Initiative are to 1) prevent the spread of zebra mussels and
other ANS in the 100th meridian jurisdictions and west and 2) monitor and control zebra
mussels and other ANS if detected in these areas. These goals will be attained through
the implementation of the following six components: 1) information and education, 2)
voluntary boat inspections and boater surveys, 3) involvement of those who haul boats
for commercial purposes, 4) monitoring, 5) rapid response, and 6) evaluation. This
initiative represents the first large-scale focused and coordinated effort, working with
federal, state, provincial and tribal entities, potentially affected industries, and other
interested parties to begin addressing the pathway to prevent the spread of zebra
mussels. The success of this Initiative depends on the commitment of these groups to
combat the spread of this destructive invader.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
The USACE administers the only Federally authorized research programs directed to
manage and control non-indigenous and nuisance species. The Aquatic Plant Control
Research Program (APCRP) develops technology for the management of nonindigenous aquatic plant species. The Zebra Mussel Research Program (ZMRP), which
was expanded into the Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Program (ANSRP)
conducts interdisciplinary research on the prevention, control, and management of
aquatic nuisance species that impact USACE projects and public facilities. The
programs are managed by the USACE Environmental Research and Development
Center (ERDC) in Vicksburg, MS. ERDC has developed Information System Models for
Plant Management, Aquatic Plants, and Zebra Mussels.
In July of 2005 a USACE Invasive Species Leadership Team (ISLT) was formed to fulfill
Federal agency duties under Executive Order 13112. Comprised primarily of Division
and District representatives, their responsibilities include 1) providing recommendations
to headquarters, 2) providing strategic direction to research programs, 3) representing
the USACE on regional invasive species councils 4) developing and implementing cost
effective strategies to address invasive species problems that affect USACE water
resource management missions, and 5) coordinating team initiatives with all concerned
interests. The ISLT is currently developing a USACE Invasive Species Management
Policy.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
The U.S. Coast Guard gets its authority to regulate ballast water and ANS from
NANPCA and NISA. NANPCA directed the Coast Guard to issue regulations and
guidelines to control the introduction and spread of ANS in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
It also required an assessment of ballast water management practices in all U.S. ports.
NISA tasked the USCG with establishing a voluntary ballast water management (BWM)
program for virtually all U.S. ports. The Coast Guard's BWM program is the primary
30
emphasis related to ANS in the inland river system. Current USCG efforts include
establishing mandatory BWM standards and practices, establishing a program to
approve ballast water treatment technologies, establishing penalties for failure to submit
required reports, and increasing the applicability to all ships with ballast water tanks
bound for all ports or places in U.S. waters.
REGIONAL
The Western Regional Panel WRP
The WRP on ANS was formed under a provision of NISA to help limit the introduction,
spread, and impacts of invasives into western North America. This panel includes
representatives from federal, state, tribal, Canadian provincial, local agencies, and from
private environmental and commercial interests.
The Mississippi River Basin Regional Panel (MRBP)
The MRBP on ANS was formed under a provision of NISA to identify priorities for
activities, develop and submit recommendations to the national ANSTF, coordinate ANS
program activities, advise public and private interests on control efforts, and submit an
annual report to the ANSTF describing prevention, research, and control activities in the
Mississippi River Basin. This panel includes representatives from federal, state, tribal,
and local agencies and from private environmental and commercial interests.
Western Governors Association (WGA)
The WGA is developing a new program to address undesirable non-indigenous aquatic
and terrestrial species in the West because of the significant economic and ecological
harm they cause. WGA has formed a working group of state and federal agencies,
industry, non-governmental organizations and academia to develop strategies to limit
the spread of these species.
31
F. Objectives, Strategies, Actions, & Cost Estimates
OBJECTIVE 1: Coordinate and implement a comprehensive management plan.
Problem Definition: There is no clear authority or agency charged with limiting and
managing ANS in Oklahoma. Most management activities are focused on isolated
problems and not concerned with addressing the issue of ANS comprehensively.
Oklahoma needs an organized and centralized approach to ANS management to
prevent duplication of effort and eliminate gaps in coverage of ANS issues. State ANS
management efforts need to be coordinated with regional and national efforts. The lack
of coordination, oversight, and funding has allowed many nuisance species to become
established in Oklahoma, and permits new introductions.
Establishment of a management plan with appropriate implementation, authority and
resources will permit effective prevention and management of ANS. Most importantly,
native species and habitat can be protected from the competition, introduction of
parasites and diseases, and predation caused by some ANS.
Current Agency Activities
ODWC
ODWC has regulated the use and development of warm water fisheries through lake
management plans that emphasize the protection of native species. The introduction of fish
species in Oklahoma streams and reservoirs, outside their native range, is evaluated closely
and discouraged if any at risk species are compromised. ODWC has developed and
implemented a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) program to prevent the spread
of ANS through Fisheries Division field and hatchery activities.
DEQ
DEQ has historical and current fish assemblage data across the State completed through the
Bio-Trend Program. DEQ will develop and implement a HACCP plan.
DEQ’s Environmental Complaints and Local Services Division is tasked with investigating
environmental issues within the State. When a complaint that pertains to ANS is identified, the
Customer Services Division of the DEQ will be contacted to assist in the investigation. ODWC
will be notified at that time and data collected in conjunction with the investigation will be
shared.
OWRB
OWRB has produced Technical Report 05-157 entitled, “Decontamination Protocol for
Aquatic Nuisance Species”. Recommendations within this report are to be followed by
agency staff to reduce the risk of spreading ANS through their activities.
http://www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/reports/reports_pdf/DecontaminationdraftCP.pdf
32
OCC
The OCC has adopted decontamination protocols recommended by the OWRB as
described above. Field personnel operate under these guidelines in order to
decontaminate all equipment after use.
National Park Service (NPS)
Operates under ANS plan for all Park Service holdings
Gaps in State Management Programs and Authorities
• Authorities are unclear
• Activities are uncoordinated in the State and Region
• Staffing shortages and lack of funding
Recommended Strategies and Actions
Strategy 1A: Coordinate all ANS management programs and activities within Oklahoma.
Task 1A1: Create and fund an ANS Coordinator position with the ODWC. (ODWC)
Task 1A2: Create and fund ANS support staff positions within key state agencies.
(ODWC)
Task 1A3: Develop an ANS training/management class for agency personnel
associated with the ANS State Task Force. (USFWS)
Task 1A4: Conduct an annual symposium focused on ANS in Oklahoma and potential
management alternatives. (ODWC)
Task 1A5: Coordinate with tribal governments regarding ANS management. (ODWC)
Task 1A6: Coordinate ANS activities with watershed-based organizations and other
local governments and/or coordinating bodies. (ODWC)
Task 1A7: Assign a priority class to all established non-indigenous aquatic species
present in Oklahoma. (ODWC)
Task 1A8: Develop a set of uniform definitions and terms to describe aquatic nuisance
species. (ODWC)
Task 1A9: Develop, authorize, maintain and administer the Aquatic Nuisance Species
Task Force in Oklahoma. (ODWC)
33
Strategy 1B: Participate in and support regional, federal, and international efforts to
control ANS.
Task 1B1: The Oklahoma Aquatic Nuisance Species Program Coordinator will work
with state, federal and private entities to identify personnel with ANS
responsibilities. (ODWC)
Task 1B2: Support and participate in the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force’s
Mississippi River Basin Panel and Western Regional Panel. (ODWC)
Task 1B3: Support the 100th Meridian Project. (USFWS)
Task 1B4: Establish working partnerships with ANS management programs in regional
states to facilitate the sharing of data and coordination of management
activities. (USFWS)
Task 1B5: Support the Zebra Mussel Task Force in Oklahoma. (ODWC)
Task 1B6: Support the Golden Alga Task Force in Oklahoma. (ODWC)
Task 1B7: Support the ANS Plant Task Force in Oklahoma. (ODWC)
Strategy 1C: Develop a permanent funding mechanism for ANS management in
Oklahoma.
Task 1C1: Explore ideas for permanent funding of ANS management activities.
(ODWC)
Task 1C2: Work with the Oklahoma legislature to establish/create a permanent
Foundation for ANS funding in Oklahoma. (ODWC)
Strategy 1D: Review and evaluate state efforts in addressing ANS.
Task 1D1: Conduct a periodic assessment of ANS species presence and
abundance in Oklahoma. (ODWC)
Task 1D2: Support the development of a state benchmark on invasive species.
(ODWC)
Task 1D3: Produce an annual update of the state ANS plan. (ODWC)
34
OBJECTIVE 2: Prevent the introduction of new ANS into Oklahoma.
Problem Definition: There are numerous pathways by which invasive species arrive
and potentially become established in Oklahoma. For example, zebra mussels first
became established in Oklahoma as a result of barge traffic moving from the Great
Lakes down the Mississippi River and up through the McClellen-Kerr Arkansas River
Navigation system. Zebra mussels have also spread naturally downstream from a
founding population in El Dorado Lake, Kansas via the Arkansas River and now infest
Kaw, Sooner, and Keystone reservoirs. Recreational boaters were the likely pathway
for zebra mussels to become established in Oologah Reservoir. Anglers likely
intentionally introduced hydrilla to Arbuckle, Murray, and Sooner Reservoirs. Pathways
for the spread of golden alga are not well understood. Understanding how various
pathways function as conduits for ANS into Oklahoma is critical for intercepting species
and preventing introductions. Introduction of species into public waters by private
individuals is currently legal upon receiving written permission from the Director of the
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. Implementation of a program that
reviews (risk assessment) and regulates which species are intentionally allowed into
Oklahoma, and monitors the pathways by which species can be unintentionally
transported into the state, is necessary to slow the rate at which new species become
established. Prevention is the most cost effective and environmentally sound method of
addressing this problem. No comprehensive program currently exists in Oklahoma that
would prevent new ANS introductions or establish control/eradication protocols should
ANS become established.
Current Agency Activities:
ODWC
ODWC has hired a full-time ANS Coordinator.
ODWC reviews and maintains a list of prohibited fish and plant species. Introductions of
all species by private entities into public waters must received written approval from the
Director.
ODWC staff has participated in collecting boater surveys sponsored by the 100th
Meridian Initiative of the Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if recreational boaters
were transporting zebra mussels and whether individuals were aware of the threat
posed by zebra mussels.
ODWC developed and distributes a “Don’t Free Lily” brochure to aquatic plant retailers
and water garden societies which lists prohibited plant species and recommends
appropriate disposal strategies for unwanted plants.
ODWC has posted "Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers" signs at many lakes statewide. This is a
campaign developed by "Protect Your Waters". This sign is posted at boat ramps and it
explains the steps boaters must take to properly clean and inspect their boats and
equipment.
35
ODWC has collected water samples from eight lakes statewide in 2009 to test for the
presence of zebra mussel veligers. Samples are collected via plankton nets and are
analyzed by PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) analysis through the Bureau of
Reclamation.
ODAFF
ODAFF licenses plant nurseries and conducts inspections to check for presence of
aquatic plants on the prohibited list. ODAFF licenses private aquaculture facilities and
inspects those facilities for the presence of species on the prohibitive list.
USACE
The Tulsa District initiated and has served as the lead agency for the Oklahoma Zebra
Mussel Task Force since 1993. They provide I&E material, conduct training, give
presentations to water interests across the state, mailed information notices to water
users and policy makers, provide interviews with media sources, and maintain a Zebra
Mussel link on their web page to educate the public and agencies of the hazards of ANS
introductions.
USFWS
USFWS has collected water samples from eight lakes statewide in 2009 to test for the
presence of zebra mussel veligers. Samples are collected via plankton nets and are
analyzed by PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) analysis through the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Gaps in State Prevention Programs and Authorities
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Limited authority and funding to quarantine species and points of origin
Limited authority to enforce regulations for possession of illegal species
Limited inspection programs of plant nurseries and commercial fish operations
Minimal penalties for violating existing statutes
No regulation of mail order or internet sales of organisms
Lack of legislated risk assessment protocol for approving introductions
Lack of legislated criteria and/or risk assessment documentation incumbent for
applicants to provide with introduction applications
Recommended Strategies and Actions
Strategy 2A:
Identify ANS that have the greatest potential to infest Oklahoma
waters and identify existing and potential pathways that facilitate new
ANS introductions.
Task 2A1: Generate a regional list of ANS and evaluate the potential threat
posed to Oklahoma by each. (ODWC)
Task 2A2: Compile movement information of ANS on a regional level and
predict the potential for possible invasion into Oklahoma waters.
(ODWC)
36
Task 2A3: Identify existing and potential transport pathways that would facilitate
the introduction of these ANS into Oklahoma. (ODWC)
Strategy 2B: Establish approaches to facilitate legislative, regulatory, and other
actions needed to prevent new ANS movements into and out of
Oklahoma and promote rules that establish the state’s authority to
control these movements.
Task 2B1: Promote legislation and regulatory rules that establish or increases
the state’s authority to control the introduction and movement of
ANS. (ODWC)
ƒ Establish the authority to detain and require cleaning of any vehicle,
vessel or water based equipment containing or infested with ANS
traveling in Oklahoma.
ƒ Increase the authority of the State to regulate the importation of
aquatic organisms and establish meaningful penalties for violations.
ƒ Require that any intentionally imported or exported organism is free
of diseases, parasites, and other unpermitted (nontarget)
organisms.
ƒ Amend Statutes and Administrative Codes to change use of diploid
grass carp in private waters to exclusively triploid grass carp.
ƒ Amend Title 800 to specifically prohibit and establish penalties for
bait bucket releases unless bait was obtained from release site.
ƒ Amend Title 800 to include protocols for evaluating and approving
introduction requests
ƒ Amend Title 800 to require risk assessment documentation from
applicants seeking introduction permits
ƒ Prohibit live transport of fish obtained in the wild unless specifically
permitted to do so.
ƒ Develop cooperative agreements with states that share common
waters.
Task 2B2: Prohibit the importation of non-indigenous aquatic species based
upon their invasive potential. (ODWC)
ƒ Train ANS Coordinator in risk assessment methodologies
ƒ Establish risk assessment protocols for proposed introductions of
non-indigenous species.
Task 2B3: Develop a list of approved species that may be imported into
Oklahoma. (ODWC)
ƒ Establish legislation to change prohibited species list to list of
species that can be possessed.
Task 2B4: Increase enforcement and awareness of existing laws controlling the
37
transport, propagation, sale, collection, possession, importation,
purchase, cultivation, distribution, and introduction of ANS and
establish meaningful penalties for illegal introductions of ANS into
Oklahoma waters. (ODWC)
ƒ Train federal, state, and local aquatic regulation enforcement
personnel on ANS identification and regulations.
ƒ Distribute information on ANS laws to businesses that import
aquatic organisms.
Task 2B5: Participate in regional and national forums to ensure coordinated
efforts to prevent the introduction of new ANS into Oklahoma.
(ODWC)
Objective 3: Detect, monitor, and eradicate ANS
Problem Definition: Once invasive species have arrived there is often a window of
opportunity to eradicate small pioneering populations before they become a nuisance.
However, ANS are often not detected until nuisance populations are formed. Usually it
is too late or too expensive to eradicate a species once it has reached a nuisance level,
and when management is conducted after a population is well-established, long-term
routine activities will often be required to control the population and reduce
environmental impacts. By initiating a detection and monitoring program, the State will
be able to discover and manage pioneering infestations at a point when the species can
be eradicated in a cost effective manner.
Current Agency Activities:
ODWC
ODWC reviews and maintains a list of prohibited fish and plant species. Introductions
of listed species into public waters are prohibited.
ODWC developed and distributes a “Don’t Free Lily” brochure to aquatic plant retailers
and water garden societies which lists prohibited plant species and recommends
appropriate disposal strategies for unwanted plants.
ODWC field staff looks for ANS during routine field/survey activities.
ODWC has collected water samples from eight lakes statewide in 2009 to test for the
presence of zebra mussel veligers. Samples are collected via plankton nets and are
analyzed by PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) analysis through the Bureau of
Reclamation.
38
ODAFF
ODAFF conducts inspections of plant nurseries to check for presence of aquatic plants
on the prohibited list.
DEQ
DEQ has historical and current fish assemblage data across the State completed through the
Bio-Trend Program. Data will be provided to ODWC to review for non-native fish populations.
DEQ Field staff will also report any other nuisance species (mussels or plant) which are
identified during any sample collection.
DEQ’s Environmental Complaints and Local Services Division is tasked with investigating
environmental issues within the State. When a complaint that pertains to ANS is identified, the
Customer Services Division of the DEQ will be contacted to assist in the investigation. ODWC
will be notified at that time and data collected in conjunction with the investigation will be
shared.
OCC
The OCC employs a number of field personnel who regularly monitor water quality,
conduct habitat evaluations, and sample macroinvertebrates and fish in streams across
Oklahoma. The OCC field staff will document and report any nuisance species sighted
during field activities. In addition, the Blue Thumb program has trained volunteers who
monitor water quality across the state, and these individuals will look for and report
nuisance species.
USACE
Lake staff monitors Zebra Mussel presence/absence and ANS plants at USACE lakes.
Local water users are educated as to the potential pathways for infestations.
Cooperation is solicited to monitor and detect ANS being brought to the lakes.
Tulsa District staff shares information with the ZMTF of changes and activities locally
and across the nation; support monitoring and studies by other agencies and academia;
and provide I&E materials and training.
USFWS
USFWS has collected water samples from eight lakes statewide in 2009 to test for the
presence of zebra mussel veligers. Samples are collected via plankton nets and are
analyzed by PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) analysis through the Bureau of
Reclamation.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
Monitored zebra mussel presence/absence at several lakes under BOR jurisdiction.
Conducted PCR analysis on water samples from 15 lakes in Oklahoma to test for the
presence of zebra mussel veligers.
Oklahoma State University (OSU)
Compile databases on distribution of native and non-indigenous plants. Monitored zebra
mussel populations at Oologah and Kaw reservoirs.
39
University of Oklahoma (OU)
University staff conducts periodic surveys and compile a database of known
occurrences of all non-indigenous plants species. Monitor seasonal abundance of
golden alga at Lake Texoma.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
TNC compiles lists of invasive species in their conservation areas through the use of
sampling records, scientific literature and field surveys.
TNC also establishes
distribution data on those invasive species and incorporates that information into the
development of their streams database.
Gaps in State Detection & Monitoring Programs and Authorities
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Limited inspection programs of plant nurseries and aquarium trade operations
Minimal penalties for violating existing statutes
No regulation of mail order or internet sales of organisms
Lack of a risk assessment protocol for approving introductions
Lack of training to identify ANS
Recommended Strategies and Actions
Strategy 3A: Implement a surveillance and early detection program.
Task 3A1: Identify and survey high-risk waters and establish baseline data.
(ODWC)
Task 3A2: Create and train a citizen-monitoring network to work in cooperation
with state agencies. (ODWC)
Task 3A3: Work with watershed-based organizations to ensure ANS are
included in ongoing monitoring programs. (OCC)
Task 3A4: Distribute zebra mussel colonization substrates (Portland samplers)
for individuals to deploy and monitor. (USFWS)
Task 3A5: Support ANS monitoring by the Grand River Dam Authority. (GRDA)
Task 3A6: Conduct periodic aerial surveys to detect colonies of plants. (ODWC)
Task 3A7: Identify high-risk waters for golden alga blooms and conduct surveys
to determine presence/absence. (OU/ODWC)
Strategy 3B: Develop an early response mechanism to deal with detected and
potential invasive species.
Task 3B1: Develop an emergency response plan for all High Priority species
40
Task 3B2: Fund and manage an early response fund. (Leg./Gov./ANSTF)
Strategy 3C: Eradicate pioneering populations of ANS.
Task 3C1: Begin control of hydrilla at Lakes Murray and Sooner. (OTRD,
ODWC)
Objective 4: Control and eradicate established ANS that have significant impacts.
Problem Definition: Established ANS populations can spread to uninfested waters,
thereby increasing their potential for economic and ecological damage. Established
non-indigenous species often create the most noticeable impacts, yet they are often
impossible to eradicate or control. Management activities are most effective when they
are directed at limiting the impacts of a population or stopping that population from
spreading to new waterbodies. Management activities must be focused on populations
of established species where there currently is or presumably will be a clear and
significant impact on native species, and where the control or eradication of specific
populations is feasible both economically and technically.
Current Agency Activities:
ODWC
ODWC issues permits for commercial fish, mussel, and turtle harvest, minnow seiners,
and scientific collectors. ODWC developed and distributes a brochure that illustrates the
need and methods to prevent spread of ANS through these activities. A similar brochure
has been developed and distributed to bass fishing tournament organizers.
ODWC has developed and distributes a brochure that illustrates the Noxious Aquatic
Plants that threaten Oklahoma and the need and methods to prevent spreading these
ANS to new aquatic environments.
ODWC has posted "Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers" signs at many lakes statewide. This is a
campaign developed by "Protect Your Waters". This sign is posted at boat ramps and it
explains the steps boaters must take to properly clean and inspect their boats and
equipment.
ODWC is the point contact with the ANS Plant Task Force (PTF). The PTF is in the
process of developing protocols for management and control of Hydrilla in reservoirs.
ODWC has repeatedly treated pioneering populations of hydrilla in an isolated cove at
Sooner Lake.
ODWC has developed protocols for reducing the risk of spreading ANS through its field
and hatchery activities. These procedures can be found at
http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/nuisancespecies.htm.
41
DEQ
DEQ monitors public drinking water systems across the State. Other agencies need to
work with DEQ WQD to assess any vulnerability for contamination of a public drinking
water system when utilizing chemicals for treatment or eradication of ANS. The contact
for this program is Kay Coffey.
DEQ’s Environmental Complaints and Local Services Division is tasked with investigating
environmental issues within the State. When a complaint that pertains to ANS is identified, the
Customer Services Division of the DEQ will be contacted to assist in the investigation. ODWC
will be notified at that time and data collected in conjunction with the investigation will be
shared.
OWRB
OWRB has produced Technical Report 05-157 entitled, “Decontamination Protocol for
Aquatic Nuisance Species”. Recommendations within this report are to be followed by
agency staff to reduce the risk of spreading ANS through their activities.
http://www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/reports/reports_pdf/DecontaminationdraftCP.pdf
OCC
The OCC has adopted decontamination protocols recommended by the OWRB as
described above. Field personnel operate under these guidelines in order to
decontaminate all equipment after use.
42
USACE
The ERDC has produced numerous Technical Notes detailing controls for ANS and
maintains Information Systems on their website and on compact disk for Zebra Mussels,
Plant Management, and Aquatic Plants.
The Tulsa District cooperates with water users being impacted by Zebra Mussels to
educate them on possible control methods.
The Tulsa District monitors ANS plants at USACE lakes and implements controls as
needed.
Gaps in State Control and Eradication Programs and Authorities
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
No state agency has a clear program directed at controlling or eradicating ANS.
Lack of information/training on control and eradication methods.
Coordinated control efforts lacking.
Current efforts are directed at individual populations and not at controlling a species
distribution and extent.
Recommended Strategies and Actions
Strategy 4A: Limit the dispersal of established ANS to new waterbodies or to new
areas of a waterbody.
Task 4A1: Establish protocols for priority ANS, that will provide guidance in
designing and implementing control and eradication strategies.
(ODWC)
Task 4A2: Support scientific research between state and federal agencies and
academic institutions that investigate potential control strategies and
associated environmental impacts. (ODWC)
Task 4A3: Ensure that the control strategies developed and implemented by the
state are done in coordination with federal agencies, local
governments, inter-jurisdictional organizations and other appropriate
entities. (ODWC)
Task 4A4: Ensure that control strategies are based on the best available
scientific information and conducted in an environmentally sound
manner. (ODWC)
Task 4A5: Develop guidelines to ensure the cleaning of water-based equipment
that may accidentally spread ANS when moved from infested to
uninfested waters. (ODWC)
43
Task 4A6: Try to limit the spread of established ANS, through reducing the
disturbance of existing populations by boats, through the use of
warning signs and buoys in infested areas. (ODWC)
Objective 5: Inform the public, policy makers, natural resource workers, private
industry, and user groups about the risks and impacts of ANS.
Problem Definition: The lack of awareness concerning ANS impacts is one of the
largest management obstacles. Few people understand the threat some non-indigenous
species pose and how their actions might introduce them. Uninformed people have
introduced many ANS through the dumping of an aquarium or a bait bucket, launching
of a contaminated boat, or stocking of a private pond. The improper importation and
holding of organisms have allowed species to escape, or caused the receipt of
unwanted organisms mixed in with intentionally imported ones. Many policy makers,
natural resource administrators, and private interest groups have facilitated the
intentional introductions of species for certain economic or recreational purposes,
without understanding the effects these species would have on native species. These
intentional and unintentional methods of introduction can be eliminated or curtailed by
educating people about their potential to transfer non-indigenous species to Oklahoma.
Current Agency Activities:
ODWC
ODWC has included information on ANS in the state fishing regulations and on its
website, developed a “Don’t Free Lily” brochure, developed a zebra mussel brochure,
developed a golden alga fact sheet, and included ANS information to private individuals
and organizations requesting permits from the agency. Periodic press releases on ANS
issues have been issued.
ODWC has posted "Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers" signs at many lakes statewide. This is a
campaign developed by "Protect Your Waters". This sign is posted at boat ramps and it
explains the steps boaters must take to properly clean and inspect their boats and
equipment.
ODAFF
ODAFF conducts inspections of plant nurseries to check for presence of aquatic plants
on the prohibited list.
DEQ
DEQ has developed a Blue-Green Algae Response Plan to provide guidance for Public
Drinking Water Supplies of the State. In conjunction with this program, a fact sheet has
been developed to educate the public on the effects of blue-green algae.
44
OCC
The OCC has incorporated information about ANS into its Blue Thumb educational
program. This program offers training to new volunteers about six times per year. In
addition, the OCC will include educational material about ANS in its area-specific
projects, where applicable.
USACE
The Tulsa District initiated and has served as the lead agency for the Oklahoma Zebra
Mussel Task Force since 1993. They provide I&E material, conduct training, give
presentations to water interests across the state, mailed information notices to water
users and policy makers, provides interviews with media sources, and maintain a Zebra
Mussel link on their web page to educate the public and agencies of the hazards of ANS
introductions.
Oklahoma State University
OSU is teaching an Ecology of Invasive Species Course in the College of Agricultural
Sciences and Natural Resources.
Oklahoma University
OU has developed a golden alga website that addresses the research being conducted
on Lake Texoma and throughout the state.
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/H/Karl.D.Hambright-1/
Gaps in State Education Programs and Authorities:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ANS is not addressed as an issue.
Inadequate information is disseminated to the public.
Few natural resource workers have the training to identify ANS.
Recommended Strategies and Actions:
Strategy 5A: Educate the public about ANS, how their actions can prevent the
spread and introduction of ANS and how they can help reduce the
impacts of existing ANS.
Task 5A1: Continue the incorporation of ANS information into state hunting and
fishing regulations (ODWC)
Task 5A2: Create an educational curriculum on ANS for K1-12 schools. Explore
options through 4-H programs to develop such curricula.
(ODWC/AREP)
Task 5A3: Produce press releases on specific ANS. (ODWC)
Task 5A4: Create articles, videos and web-based media concerning ANS.
(ODWC)
45
Task 5A5: Distribute information on ANS at various conferences, shows, fishing
tournaments, and public gatherings. (ODWC)
Task 5A6: Develop ANS identification cards to be distributed with hunting and
fishing licenses. (ODWC)
Task 5A7: Develop an “Oklahoma friendly” plant labeling system in conjunction
with the nursery industry. (ODAFF)
Strategy 5B: Inform policymakers on the extent, impact, and potential for harm of
ANS.
Task 5B1: Conduct field trips for policymakers to demonstrate ANS impacts and
controls. (ODAFF/ODWC)
Task 5B2: Produce legislative information packets outlining the threats of ANS,
management alternatives, and the funds needed to address ANS in
Oklahoma. (ODWC/ODAFF)
Strategy 5C: Train natural resource workers in identifying ANS.
Task 5C1: Conduct identification seminars for field personnel. (ODAFF/ODWC)
Strategy 5D: Educate private industry on the laws regulating and effects of ANS.
Task 5D1: Expand distribution of a pamphlet for the nursery industry identifying
ANS, the laws regulating them, and their effects in natural systems.
(ODAFF)
Task 5D2: Distribute information on ANS to businesses selling aquatic
organisms, such as pet stores. (ODAFF/ODWC)
Task 5D3: Provide information to fishing tournament organizers on ANS.
(ODWC)
Objective 6: Conduct/support research to determine risks associated with
pathways of introduction/spread; environmental conditions favorable for
establishment of ANS; interactions with native species; and cost-effective and
environmentally safe control/eradication measures.
Problem Definition: Little is known about the extent and magnitude of the ANS
problem in Oklahoma. Research is needed to clarify the effect ANS poses to Oklahoma
water resources. Some of the research questions relevant to the ANS problem include:
1) determining the risks associated with pathways of introduction and spread; 2) the
environmental conditions necessary for ANS to become established; 3) interactions
among ANS and native species and the consequences of those interactions; and 4)
which management options will provide the best results in controlling ANS populations.
46
Current Agency Activities:
Oklahoma State University
OSU is conducting research to determine the range and densities of zebra mussel
populations within the Tallgrass Prairie Region as part of the Oklahoma State Wildlife
Action Plan.
Oklahoma University
OU is conducting research on the toxicology of the prymnesin toxin to various sport
fishes and zooplankton and the ecological interactions of golden alga with
phytoplankton and zooplankton communities in Lake Texoma. OU is also currently
monitoring golden alga abundance on Lake Texoma and investigating physical,
chemical, and ecological triggers to blooms and toxin production. A proposed expansion
of these efforts on a statewide basis would identify high-risk waters and focus efforts to
control spread to uninfested water bodies. Development of a web-based database on
golden alga survey work is ongoing.
OU has funding to initiate a study on Daphnia lumholtzi genetics and ecology.
ODWC
ODWC funds research on zebra mussels through OSU and golden alga through OU.
ODWC has collected water samples from eight lakes statewide in 2009 to test for the
presence of zebra mussel veligers. Samples are collected via plankton nets and are
analyzed by PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) analysis through the Bureau of
Reclamation.
DEQ
DEQ collects annual fish assemblage data across the State completed through the Bio-Trend
Program. Data will be provided to ODWC to review for non-native fish populations.
DEQ’s Environmental Complaints and Local Services Division is tasked with investigating
environmental issues within the State. When a complaint that pertains to ANS is identified, the
Customer Services Division of the DEQ will be contacted to assist in the investigation. ODWC
will be notified at that time and data collected in conjunction with the investigation will be
shared.
USACE
The Tulsa District monitors the USACE lakes for ANS presence/absence and densities.
They also support agency and academia research at the lakes, and keep informed of
impacts to water users.
The Tulsa District is actively involved in national efforts and keeps informed of Zebra
Mussel control and eradication research. Updates are provided to the ZMTF.
The ERDC has produced numerous Technical Notes detailing controls for ANS and
maintains Information Systems on their website and on compact disk for Zebra Mussels,
Plant Management, and Aquatic Plants.
47
USFWS
USFWS is conducting surveys of zebra mussel occurrence and abundance on selected
water bodies using Portland samplers.
USFWS has collected water samples from eight lakes statewide in 2009 to test for the
presence of zebra mussel veligers. Samples are collected via plankton nets and are
analyzed by PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) analysis through the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Gaps in State Prevention Programs and Authorities
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Limited funding is available to conduct research
Poor understanding of basic biology and impacts of ANS
Limited management options for control/eradication
Lack of thorough survey of ANS distribution within the state
Recommended Strategies and Actions
Strategy 6A: Support research that identifies, predicts, and prioritizes potential
ANS introductions.
Task 6A1: Identify life histories and impacts of introduced aquatic plants and
animals. (ODWC)
Task 6A2: Identify critical data needed to prevent the introduction of new ANS.
(ODWC)
Task 6A3: Attend scientific and technical conferences
mechanisms by which new ANS spread. (ODWC)
addressing
the
Task 6A4: Monitor ongoing research efforts attempting to develop control
mechanisms for new ANS. (ODWC)
Strategy 6B: Research management alternatives for their effect on ANS and
native species.
Task 6B1: Investigate the relationship between human-induced disturbance of
aquatic and riparian systems and ANS invasion, establishment, and
impacts. (ODWC)
Task 6B2: Investigate new and innovative methods of control/eradicate ANS.
(ODWC)
Strategy 6C: Facilitate the collection and dispersal of information, research results,
and data on ANS in Oklahoma.
Task 6C1: Utilize existing field personnel to document the distribution and
48
abundance of ANS. (ODWC)
Task 6C2: Create a database of stakeholders to receive annual ANS updates.
(ODWC)
Task 6C3: Utilize the internet to distribute information and research findings via
an agency website. (ODWC)
G. Priorities for Action
Often efforts to address ANS problems are implemented after the species has arrived
and become widely distributed. As a result, these efforts are often reactive and
ineffective. The purpose of this management plan is to expand the scope of efforts in
Oklahoma to deal with the threats posed by all ANS. The goal of this management plan
is to implement a coordinated strategy designed to minimize the risk of further ANS
introductions into Oklahoma through all known pathways, develop funding mechanisms
to implement and staff an Oklahoma ANS management program, where practical, stop
the spread of ANS already present and eradicate or control ANS to a minimal level of
impact. By forming this management plan, it is expected that the problems other states
have experienced can be minimized or completely avoided. Initially, this plan will focus
on the Priority Class 1 species listed below. As this program evolves, the focus will shift
to the development and implementation of new programs designed to address the lower
priority species and/or species yet to be determined as threats.
PRIORITY CLASS 1
Priority Class 1 species are present and established in Oklahoma, have the potential to
spread in Oklahoma, and there are limited or no known management strategies for
these species. These species can be managed through actions that involve mitigation of
impact, control of population size, and prevention of dispersal to other water bodies.
• Bighead Carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis)
• Golden Alga (Prymnesius parvum)
• Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)
• Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)
• Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix)
• White Perch (Morone americana)
• Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha)
• Didymo (Didymosphenia geminate)
PRIORITY CLASS 2
Priority Class 2 species are currently not known to be present in Oklahoma, but have a
high potential to invade and there are limited or no known management strategies for
these species. Appropriate management for this class includes prevention of
introductions and/or eradication of pioneering populations.
• Black Carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus)
• Northern Snakehead (Channa argus)
49
•
•
•
•
•
•
Quagga Mussels (Dreisena bugensis)
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia
New Zealand Mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum)
Rusty Crayfish (Orconectes rusticus)
Spring Viremia of Carp
Whirling Disease (Myxobolus cerebralis)
PRIORITY CLASS 3
Priority Class 3 species are not known to be established in Oklahoma and have a high
potential for invasion and appropriate management techniques are available.
Appropriate management for this class includes prevention of introductions and/or
eradication of pioneering populations.
• Giant Salvinia (Salvinia molesta)
PRIORITY CLASS 4
Priority Class 4 species are present and have the potential to spread in Oklahoma but
there are management strategies available for these species. These species can be
managed through actions that involve mitigation of impact, control of population size,
and/or prevention of dispersal to other water bodies.
• Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
• Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides)
• Exotic Water Flea (Daphnia lumholtzi)
• Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)
• Nutria (Myocastor coypus)
• Largemouth Bass Virus
• Rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus)
• Brook Stickleback (Culaea inconstans)
• Water Hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes)
50
H. Implementation Table
Currently, Oklahoma has funding for the development of an aquatic nuisance species management plan, but not for the
implementation of the plan. Therefore, funding amounts on the implementation table will be dependent upon the level of
federal funding allocated after plan approval and securing funding from additional outside sources.
Plan #
Strategic Actions/Tasks
Description
Funds
Source
Lead
Agency
Cooperative
Agencies
Recent ($000/FTE’s)
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
Planned ($000/FTE’s)
FY 09
FY 10
Objective 1: Coordinate and implement a comprehensive management plan
1A
1A1
1A2
1A3
1A4
1A5
1A6
1A7
1A8
1A9
1B
1B1
1B2
1B3
1B4
Coordinate ANS Management Programs
Create and Fund an ANS Coor.
ODWC
Create and Fund ANS staff
ODWC
Develop ANS Training
USFWS
Conduct Annual symposium in OK
ODWC
Coordinate With tribal Govt.
ODWC
Coord w/NGO’s & local governments
ODWC
Assign priority class to all species
ODWC
Develop definitions and terms
ODWC
Authorize ANS Task Force in OK
ODWC
Support regional efforts for control of ANS in Oklahoma
Identify AGENCY responsibilities
ODWC
Support MRBP and WRP
ODWC
Support 100th Meridian
USFWS
Data Sharing on Regional Basis
USFWS
ODWC
Support Zebra Mussel Task Force
ODWC
40/1
USACE, ODWC
USACE, USFWS
USFWS
USACE,USFWS
USACE,USFWS
USACE,USFWS
USFWS
1B6
Support Golden Alga Task Force
ODWC
1B7
1C
1C1
1C2
1D
1D1
1D2
1D3
Support ANS Plant Task Force
Permanent Funding Mechanism
Explore Funding Ideas
Establish ANS Foundation
Evaluate ANS Plan Progress
Conduct ANS Surveys
Establish Distribution Benchmark
Publish & Distribute Annual Update
ODWC
USACE,USFWS
USFWS
USACE, ODWC
USACE, OCC,
OU
USACE,USFWS,
OCC
USACE, OCC,
OU
USACE, OCC
ODWC
ODWC
USFWS
ODWC
ODWC
ODWC
USFWS, USACE
TNC
USFWS, USACE
1B5
51
20/0.1
10/0.1
13/0.1
50/1
50/1
5/0.1
5/0.1
5/0.1
5/0.1
2/0.1
2/0.1
Plan #
Strategic Actions/Tasks
Description
Funds
Source
Lead
Agency
Cooperative
Agencies
Recent ($000/FTE’s)
FY 06
FY 07 FY 08
Planned ($000/FTE’s)
FY 09
FY 10
Objective 2: Prevent the introduction of new ANS into Oklahoma
2A
2A1
2A2
2A3
2B
2B1
2B2
2B3
2B4
2B5
Identify ANS that have the greatest potential to infest Oklahoma
Generate a regional list of ANS
ODWC
USFWS, USACE,
TNC
Compile ANS movement data
ODWC
USFWS, USACE
Identify transport pathways
ODWC
USFWS, USACE
Establish approaches to prevent new ANS introductions
Strengthen statutory authorities
ODWC
Prohibit transport of ANS
ODWC
Develop list of approved species
ODWC
USFWS, USACE
Increase awareness/enforcement
ODWC
USFWS, USACE,
OCC, ODAFF
Coordinate prevention
ODWC
USFWS, USACE,
OCC
Objective 3: Detect, monitor, and eradicate ANS
3A
3A1
3A2
Implement a surveillance and early detection program
Annual survey of high-risk waters
ODWC
Create & train citizen network
ODWC
3A3
3A4
3A5
3A6
3A7
3B
3B1
3B2
Work with watershed council
Distribute zm colonization substrates
Support ANS monitoring by GRDA
Conduct surveillance flights
Conduct golden alga surveys
Develop an early response mechanism
Develop emergency response plan
Fund & manage early response fund
3C
3C1
Eradicate pioneering populations of ANS
Treat hydrilla in Murray & Sooner
USACE, USFWS
USACE, USFWS,
OCC, OSU
OCC
USFWS
GRDA
ODWC
USACE
OCC, ODWC
OU, ODWC
USACE, OWRB
ODWC
Leg.,
Gov.,
ANSTF
USACE, USFWS
ODWC,
OTRD
52
20/0.1
10/0.1
13/0.1
10/0.1
10/0.1
5/0.1
5/0.1
5/0.1
5/0.1
1.5/0.1
1.5/0.1
Plan #
Strategic Actions/Tasks
Description
Funds
Source
Lead
Agency
Cooperative
Agencies
Recent ($000/FTE’s)
FY 06
FY 07 FY 08
Objective 4: Control and eradicate established ANS that have significant impacts
4A
4A1
4A2
4A3
Limit ANS dispersal across state
Establish protocol for priority rank
Support research between state-fed
Coor. Strategies w/other agencies
ODWC
ODWC
ODWC
ODWC
4A4
Control strategies based on best info
ODWC
4A5
Develop cleaning guidelines
ODWC
USFWS, USACE
USFWS, USACE
USFWS, USACE
USFWS, USACE,
OCC, DEQ
USFWS, USACE,
DEQ
USFWS, USACE,
DEQ
53
5/0.1
10/0.1
Planned ($000/FTE’s)
FY 09
FY 10
Plan #
Strategic Actions/Tasks
Description
Funds
Source
Lead
Agency
Cooperative
Agencies
Recent ($000/FTE’s)
Planned ($000/FTE’s)
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09
FY 10
Objective 5: Educate resource user groups re: risks and impacts of ANS and how to reduce the harmful impacts
5A
5A1
5A2
Educate the public about ANS
Incorporate ANS info in regulations
Create educational curriculum
5A3
5A4
5A5
Produce press releases
Create articles, video & web media
Distribute information on ANS
5A6
5A7
5B
5B1
5B2
5C
5C1
5D
5D1
5D2
5D3
ODWC
ODWC,
OK
Aquarium
ODWC
ODWC
ODWC
USFWS, USACE
USFWS, USACE
USFWS, USACE
USFWS, USACE
USFWS, USACE,
OCC, DEQ
Develop ANS identification cards
ODWC
USFWS, USACE
Develop a plant labeling system
ODAFF
USFWS, USACE
Inform policy makers about the extent, impact, and potential for harm of ANS
Conduct field trips for policymakers
ODWC,
USFWS, USACE
ODAFF
Produce a legislative ANS manual
ODWC,
USFWS, USACE
ODAFF
Train natural resource workers in identifying ANS
Conduct ANS identification seminars
ODWC,
USFWS, USACE,
ODAFF
DEQ, OSU
Educate private industry on the laws regulating and effects of ANS
ANS pamphlet for nursery industry
ODAFF
Distribute information on ANS
ODWC,
OCC, DEQ
ODAFF
Provide information to tournaments
ODWC
54
20/0.1
1/0
5/0
5/0
Plan #
Strategic Actions/Tasks
Description
Funds
Source
Lead
Agency
Cooperative
Agencies
Recent ($000/FTE’s)
Planned ($000/FTE’s)
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09
FY 10
Objective 6: Conduct & support research on ANS and control measures
6A
6A1
6A2
6A3
6A4
6B
6B1
6B2
6C
6C1
6C2
6C3
Support research that identifies, predicts, and prioritizes potential ANS introductions
Identify life histories and impacts
ODWC,
USFWS, USACE
192/3
OU
Identify critical data needs
ODWC
USFWS, USACE
Attend ANS-related conferences
ODWC
USFWS, USACE,
3/0
OCC
Monitor on-going research efforts
ODWC
USFWS, USACE
Research management alternatives for their effect on ANS and native species
Human-induced disturbance vs. ANS
ODWC
USFWS, USACE
New methods of managing ANS
ODWC
USFWS, USACE
Facilitate collection/ dispersal of ANS information, research results, and data
Document ANS distribution
ODWC
USFWS, USACE,
OCC, TNC
Distribution list of ANS information
ODWC
USFWS, USACE,
OCC
Distribute ANS information via web
ODWC
USFWS, USACE,
OCC, OSU, OU
55
445/3
271/3
363/3
361/3
3/0
3/0
3/0
3/0
I. Program Monitoring and Evaluation
Evaluation of Oklahoma’s ANS Management Program is vital to the program’s
success. This plan is intended to be fluid, allowing for mid-course corrections as
deemed appropriate (adaptive management). Meeting the plan’s stated
objectives will require oversight, evaluation, and information dissemination.
An oversight committee will be established upon plan approval by the ANS Task
Force. This committee will be comprised of external publics (as identified during
the plan review process); representatives from agencies with plan
implementation responsibilities; political representation (either legislative or
executive); and members of the Steering Committee. The role of this interagency
committee would be to annually review progress toward meeting the plan’s
stated objectives. The oversight committee should establish performance
measures to assess the effectiveness of management actions. These measures
could include:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
whether or not objectives were met
rate of spread
total acreage of habitat occupied by ANS
changes in abundance of ANS and concomitant decline of impacted
species
ƒ level of public awareness of ANS issues.
Identifying funding sources should be an important focus of the oversight
committee. Prior to plan approval by the ANSTF, temporary performance
measures were established for the Oklahoma Aquatic Nuisance Species
Coordinator. These performance measures will be reviewed quarterly by the
Fisheries Division administration of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation, and are subject to change by the oversight committee.
Program monitoring is important, as unforeseen factors may impact the progress
of management actions. Unforeseen physical, chemical, or biological stressors
have the potential to affect the success of management objectives. Examples of
potential stressors include climate change, natural disasters, and chemical spills.
Events like these can alter aquatic ecosystems, making them more susceptible to
invasion by opening new pathways or niches. In the case that these types of
events occur, program monitoring will allow us to gauge whether management
actions are still effective, or need to be altered.
The ANS Coordinator will produce an annual report to be reviewed by the
oversight committee and made available to all interested agencies and publics.
The report should focus on the successes in achieving the objectives of the ANS
plan and include recommendations for future management actions. The report
should also recommend and justify any shifts in strategies deemed appropriate.
.
56
J. Glossary
Accidental introduction: An introduction of non-indigenous aquatic species that
occurs as the result of activities other than the purposeful or intentional
introduction of the species involved, such as the transport of non-indigenous
species in ballast water or in water used to transport fish, mollusks, or
crustaceans for aquaculture or other purposes.
Aquatic nuisance species (ANS): A species that is non-native to the affected
ecosystem and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or
environmental harm or harm to human health. This term is synonymous with an
“invasive species” as defined by Executive Order 13112.
Baitfish: Fish species commonly sold for use as bait for recreational fishing.
Ballast water: Any water or associated sediments used to manipulate the trim
and stability of a vessel.
Control: Limiting the distribution and abundance of a species.
Ecological integrity: The extent to which an ecosystem has been altered by
human behavior; an ecosystem with minimal impact from human activity has a
high level of integrity; an ecosystem that has been substantially altered by human
activity has a low level of integrity.
Environmentally sound: Methods, efforts, actions, or programs to prevent
introductions or to control infestations of ANS that minimize adverse
environmental impacts.
Eradicate: The act or process of eliminating an ANS.
Exotic: Any species or other biological material that enters an ecosystem
beyond its historic range on the continent.
Great Lakes: Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron (including Lake St. Clair),
Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and the connecting channels (Saint Mary's River,
Saint Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara River, and Saint Lawrence River to the
Canadian Border), and includes all other bodies of water within the drainage
basin of such lakes and connecting channels.
Infested: Any waterbody where an aquatic nuisance species is known to occur.
Intentional introduction: All or part of the process by which a non-indigenous
species is purposefully introduced into a new area.
Native: A plant or animal species that naturally occurs in Oklahoma and has not
been introduced outside of its historic range.
57
Non-indigenous species: Any species or other variable biological material that
enters an ecosystem beyond its historic range.
Pioneer infestation: A small ANS colony that has spread to a new area from an
established colony.
Population: A group of individual plant or animal species occupying a particular
area at the same time.
Transplant: A species that is native to Oklahoma but has been moved outside its
native range.
58
K. Literature Cited
Belanger, S.E., J.L. Farris, D.S. Cherry, and J. Cairns, Jr. 1985. Sediment
Preference Of The Freshwater Asiatic Clam, Corbicula Fluminea. The
Nautilus 99(2-3):66-73.
Benson, A.J. E. Maynard, and D. Raikow. 2005. Daphnia lumholtzi . Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL.
Benson, A. J., P. L. Fuller, and C. C. Jacono. 2001. Summary report of nonindigenous aquatic species in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4.
USFWS report. Arlington, VA.
Boileau, M. G. 1985. The expansion of white perch Morone americana in the
Lower Great Lakes. Fisheries 10(1):6–10.
Burkhead, N. M., and J. D. Williams. 1991. An intergeneric hybrid of a native
minnow, the golden shiner, and an exotic minnow, the rudd. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 120:781–795.
Courtenay, W.R., and J.D. Williams. 2004. Snakehead (Pisces, Channidae): A
biological synopsis and risk assessment. USGS Circular 1251.
Dzialowski, A. R., W. J. O'Brien and S. M. Swaffar. 2000. Range expansion and
potential dispersal mechanisms of the exotic cladoceran Daphnia
lumholtzi. Journal of Plankton Research 22(12):2205-2223.
Freeze, M. and S. Henderson. 1982. Distribution and status of the bighead carp
and silver carp in Arkansas. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 2(2):197-200.
Gottfried, P.K., and Osborne, A. 1982. Distribution, abundance and size of
Corbicula manilensis (Philippi) in a spring-fed central Florida stream. ID
1652.
Hargrave, C.W. and K. B. Gido. 2004. Evidence of reproduction by exotic grass
carp in the Red and Washita Rivers, Oklahoma. Southwestern Naturalist
49:89-93.
Havel, J.E. and J.B. Shurin. 2004. Mechanisms, effects, and scales of dispersal
in freshwater zooplankton. Limnology and Oceanography 49: 1220-1238.
Heard, W.R. 1959. Live bait imports: Chrosomus eos and Eucalia inconstans as
potential additions to Oklahoma's fish fauna. Proceedings of the
Oklahoma Academy of Science (for 1956) 37:47-48.
Hushak, L. J., Y. Deng, and M. Bielen. 1995. The Cost of Zebra Mussel
Monitoring and Control. Aquatic Nuisance Species Digest 1(1).
59
Jenkinson, J.J. 1979. The Occurrence And Spread Of Corbicula Manilensis In
East-central Alabama. Nautilus 94(4):149-153.
Kolar, C.S., D.C. Chapman, W.R. Courtenay, C.M. Housel, J.D. Williams, and
D.P. Jennings. 2005. Asian carps of the genus Hypophthalmichthys
(Pisces, Cyprinidae) ― a biological synopsis and environmental risk
assessment. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Geological
Survey, LaCrosse, WI. 184 pages.
Lachner, E. A., C. R. Robins, and W. R. Courtenay, Jr. 1970. Exotic fishes and
other aquatic organisms introduced into North America. Smithsonian
Contributions to Zoology 59:1-29.
Lodge, D. M., C. A. Taylor, D. M. Holdich, J. Skurdal. 2000. Non-indigenous
crayfishes threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: lessons from
Europe. Fisheries 25(8):7–20.
Mandrak, N.E. and B. Cudmore. 2004. Risk assessment for Asian carps in
Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Department of Fisheries
and Oceans Canada. Burlington, Ontario. Research Document 2004/103.
48 pages.
Moore, G. A., and C. D. Riggs. 1963. Checklist of known Oklahoma fishes.
Pages 41-44 in Oklahoma Wildlife Commission. Know Your Oklahoma
Fishes. Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, OK.
Nico, L. G., and P. Fuller. 2003. Rudd Scardinius erythrophthalmus fact sheet.
USGS Non-indigenous aquatic species database. Gainsville, FL.
Nico, L. G., and P. Fuller. 2004. Black carp Mylopharyngodon piceus fact sheet.
USGS Non-indigenous aquatic species database. Gainsville, FL.
Nico. L., P. Fuller, and P.J. Schofield. 2006. Ctenopharyngodon idella. USGS
Non-indigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL. Available:
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=514. Revision
date: 2/2/2006.
Nico, L.G., J.D. Williams, and H.L. Jelks. 2005. Black carp: biological synopsis
and risk assessment of an introduced fish. American Fisheries Society,
Special Publication 32. Bethesda, Maryland.
Nico L.G. and J.D. Williams. 1996. Risk assessment on black carp (Pisces:
Cyprinidae). Final Report to the Risk Assessment and Management
Committee of the ANSTF. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources
Division, Gainesville, Florida.
Pigg, J., J. Stahl, M. Ambler, and J. Smith,. 1997. Two Potential Sources of
Exotic Fish in Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of
Science 73:67.
60
Pigg, J., J. Smith, and M. Ambler. 1997. Additional records of bighead carp,
Hypophthalmichthys nobilis, in Oklahoma waters. Proceedings of the
Oklahoma Academy of Science 77:123.
Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and
economic costs of non-indigenous species in the United States.
BioScience 50:53-65.
Rendall, W. 1997. Non-indigenous species and upcoming guidelines for
prevention. Aquatic Nuisance Species Digest 2 (2): 13, 18-19.
Richards, D. C. 2002. The New Zealand mudsnail invades. Aquatic Nuisance
Species Digest Vol. 4(4):42-44.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1990. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin of
the Fisheries Research board of Canada 184. 966 pp.
Stites, D.L., A.C. Benke, and D.M. Gillespie. 1995. Population Dynamics,
Growth, and Production Of The Asiatic Clam, Corbicula Fluminea, In A
Blackwater River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries And Aquatic Sciences
52:425-437.
Trometer, E. S., Busch, W. D. N. 1999: Changes in Age-0 Fish Growth and
Abundance Following the Introduction of Zebra Mussels Dreissena
polymorpha in the Western Basin of Lake Erie. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 19:604–609.
U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Harmful non-indigenous
species in the United States,OTA-F-565. Washington, DC.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Conserving America’s fisheries:
Fisheries Program vision for the future. U.S. Department of the Interior. 27
pages. Available:
www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries/Docs/VisionDocument.PDF
Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado's little fish: a guide to the minnows and other lesser
known fishes in the state of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife,
Denver, CO. 77 pp.
Wu, L., and D. A. Culver. 1991. Zooplankton grazing and phytoplankton
abundance: An assessment before and after invasion of Dreissena
polymorpha. Journal of Great Lakes Research 17: 425-436.
61
Appendix A
List of non-indigenous* and transplanted** species in Oklahoma
Group
Algae
Diatoms
AmphibiansFrogs
AmphibiansFrogs
CoelenteratesHydrozoans
CrustaceansCladocerans
CrustaceansCopepods
CrustaceansCrayfish
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Scientific Name
Common Name
Non-Indigenous/
Transplant
Didymosphenia geminata
didymo
Non-indigenous
Eleutherodactylus planirostris
Greenhouse Frog
Non-indigenous
Hyla cinerea
Green Treefrog
Non-indigenous
Craspedacusta sowerbyi
freshwater jellyfish
Non-indigenous
Daphnia lumholtzi
water flea
Non-indigenous
Eurytemora affinis
calanoid copepod
Non-indigenous
Procambarus clarkii
red swamp crayfish
Non-indigenous
Ambloplites rupestris
Ameiurus nebulosus
Astyanax fasciatus
Astyanax mexicanus
Campostoma oligolepis
Carassius auratus
Ctenopharyngodon idella
Culaea inconstans
Cyprinella whipplei
Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis
Cyprinus carpio
Dorosoma petenense
Fundulus catenatus
Hiodon tergisus
Hypophthalmichthys nobilis
Ictalurus furcatus
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis microlophus
Menidia beryllina
Micropterus dolomieu
Micropterus salmoides floridanus
Morone americana
Morone chrysops x saxatilis
Morone saxatilis
Notropis bairdi
Notropis blennius
Notropis boops
Notropis girardi
Notropis nubilus
Notropis potteri
Notropis shumardi
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Oreochromis aureus
Perca flavescens
Percina macrolepida
Phoxinus eos
Piaractus brachypomus
Pimephales promelas
Pygocentrus nattereri
rock bass
brown bullhead
banded astyanax
Mexican tetra
largescale stoneroller
goldfish
grass carp
brook stickleback
steelcolor shiner
Red River pupfish
common carp
threadfin shad
northern studfish
mooneye
bighead carp
blue catfish
redbreast sunfish
redear sunfish
inland silverside
smallmouth bass
Florida largemouth bass
white perch
wiper
striped bass
Red River shiner
river shiner
bigeye shiner
Arkansas River shiner
Ozark minnow
chub shiner
silverband shiner
rainbow trout
blue tilapia
yellow perch
bigscale logperch
northern redbelly dace
pirapatinga, red-bellied pacu
fathead minnow
red piranha
Transplant
Transplant
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Transplant
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Transplant
Transplant
Non-indigenous
Transplant
Transplant
Transplant
Non-indigenous
Transplant
Transplant
Transplant
Transplant
Transplant
Transplant
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Transplant
Transplant
Transplant
Transplant
Transplant
Transplant
Transplant
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Transplant
Transplant
Non-indigenous
Transplant
Non-indigenous
62
Fishes
Fishes
Pygocentrus or Serrasalmus sp.
Salmo trutta
unidentified piranha
brown trout
Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Mammals
MollusksBivalves
MollusksBivalves
MollusksGastropods
MollusksGastropods
Plants
Plants
Plants
Plants
Plants
Plants
Plants
Plants
Plants
Plants
Plants
ReptilesCrocodilians
ReptilesCrocodilians
Sander vitreus
Scardinius erythrophthalmus
Tinca tinca
Umbra limi
Xiphophorus helleri
Myocastor coypus
walleye
rudd
tench
central mudminnow
green swordtail
nutria
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-Indigenous/
Transplant
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Corbicula fluminea
Asian clam
Non-indigenous
Dreissena polymorpha
zebra mussel
Non-indigenous
Cipangopaludina japonica
Japanese mysterysnail
Non-indigenous
Pomacea paludosa
Florida applesnail
Non-indigenous
Alternanthera philoxeroides
Landoltia (Spirodela) punctata
Ludwigia hexapetala
Lythrum salicaria
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Myriophyllum spicatum
Najas minor
Nasturtium officinale
Nymphoides peltata
Marsilea quadripholia
Potamogeton crispus
alligatorweed
dotted duckweed
Uruguay seedbox
purple loosestrife
parrot-feather
Eurasian water-milfoil
brittle naiad
water-cress
yellow floating-heart
water clover
curly pondweed
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Non-indigenous
Alligator mississippiensis
American Alligator
Transplant
Caiman crocodilus
Common Caiman
Non-indigenous
*Non-indigenous: not native to OK; **Transplant: native to OK but moved outside native
range
63
Appendix B
ANS Steering Committee and Technical Advisors
Steering Committee
Curtis Tackett
Aquatic Nuisance Species
Coordinator
Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife
Conservation
P.O. Box 53465
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
[email protected]
Bill Wentroth
North Central Regional Fisheries
Supervisor
Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife
Conservation
417 S. Silverdale Lane
Ponca City, OK 74604
[email protected]
Jeff Boxrucker
Assistant Chief of Fisheries Division
Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife
Conservation
P.O. Box 53465
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
[email protected]
Gene Gilliland
Central Regional Fisheries Supervisor
Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife
Conservation
500 E. Constellation
Norman, OK 73072
[email protected]
Technical Advisors
Zebra Mussel Task Force
Everett Laney
Jeff Tompkins
Biologist
Natural Resource Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
1645 S 101 E Ave.
420 W. Main, Suite 630
Tulsa, OK 74128
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
[email protected]
[email protected]
Bob Pitman
Region II ANS Coordinator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 1306, Rm 3118
Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306
[email protected]
Caryn Vaughn
Heritage Biologist/Assistant Professor
Oklahoma Biological Survey
University of Oklahoma
111 E. Chesapeake St.
Norman, OK 73109-5112
cvaughn @ou.edu
Brooks Tramell
Monitoring Coordinator
Oklahoma Conservation
Commission
2800 N. Lincoln Blvd.
Oklahoma City, Ok 72105
[email protected]
Marley Beam
Area Extension Aquaculture Specialist
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension
Service
008C Ag Hall
Stillwater, OK 74078
[email protected]
64
Randy Parham
Oklahoma Dept of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 1677
Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677
[email protected]
Chuck Potts
Senior Environmental Program
Specialist
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
3800 N. Classen Blvd
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
[email protected]
Joe Bidwell
Assistant Professor
Department of Zoology
Oklahoma State University
430 Life Sciences West
Stillwater, OK 74078
[email protected]
Jim Schooley
Professor of Biological Sciences
Northeastern State University
Science 309
Tahlequah, OK
[email protected]
Conrad Kleinholz
Research Professor
Langston University
P.O. Box 1730
Langston, OK 73050
[email protected]
Kara Williams
Oklahoma Dept of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 1677
Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677
[email protected]
ANS Plant Task Force
Jeanetta Cooper
Paul Koenig
Oklahoma Dept. of Agriculture
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
P.O. Box 528804
3800 N. Classen
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4298
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
[email protected]
[email protected]
TBA
South Central Regional
Supervisor
Oklahoma Dept. Wildlife Conservation
2021 Caddo Hwy.
Caddo, OK 74729-3807
Jon Craig
Oklahoma Dept of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 1677
Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677
[email protected]
Michael Smart
Ecologist
USACE LAERF
Lewisville, TX
[email protected]
Bruce Hoagland
Heritage Biologist/Assistant Professor
Oklahoma Biological Survey
111 E. Chesapeake St.
Norman, OK 73109-5112
bhoagland @ou.edu
Jim Harris
USACE
1645 S. 101 E. Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74128
65
Steve Burrough
National Park Service
Chickasaw National Recreation Area
P.O. Box 201
Sulphur, OK 73086
[email protected]
Precious Peoples
National Park Service
Chickasaw National Recreation Area
P.O. Box 201
Sulphur, OK 73086
[email protected]
Carol Jackson
Lake Murray State Park
18407 Scenic State Hwy 77
Ardmore, OK 74401
[email protected]
Mark Teders
Lake Murray State Park
18407 Scenic State Hwy 77
Ardmore, OK 74401
[email protected]
At-Large Technical Advisors
Larry Weider
Dave Hambright
Director/Assistant Professor
Assistant Professor
University of Oklahoma Biological
University of Oklahoma Biological
Station
Station
HC 71, Box 205
HC 71, Box 205
Kingston, OK 73439
Kingston, OK 73439
[email protected]
[email protected]
Darrell Townsend
Superintendent of Ecosystems
Development
Grand River Dam Authority
P.O. Box 409
Vinita, OK 74301
[email protected]
Brent Bristow
Fishery Biologist
Fisheries Resources Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
5701 W. Hwy. 7
Tishomingo, OK 73460
[email protected]
David Martinez
Ecological Services
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
9014 E. 21st St.
Tulsa, OK 74129
[email protected]
John Schutte
Senior Staff Envirochemist
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company
[email protected]
Marilyn Barrett O’Leary
Southeast Aquatic Resources
Partnership
Louisiana Sea Grant College
Program
Louisiana State University
Wetland Resources Bldg.
Baton Rouge, LA 70803-7507
[email protected]
Richard Standage
Fisheries Program Manager
U.S. Forest Service
Ouachita National Forest
P.O. Box 1270
Hot Springs, AR 71902-1270
[email protected]
66
Tony Clyde
USACE
1645 S. 101 E. Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74128
[email protected]
Lee Sanders
Oklahoma BASS Federation Nation
[email protected]
Meredith Lee
Education Outreach Coordinator
Oklahoma Scenic Rivers
Commission
[email protected]
Joe Anderson
Oklahoma Aquarium Association
Oklahomaaquariumassociation@qmail.
com
Richard Cartlidge
Oklahoma Anglers Unlimited
2300 E. Coleman Rd.
Ponca City, OK 74604
[email protected]
Phil Coventon
Prairie Fly Fishers
[email protected]
John Money
Oklahoma Aquarium
[email protected]
Doss Briggs
Oklahoma Anglers Unlimited
[email protected]
Ellen Tejan
The Nature Conservancy
2727 E 21st St.
Suite 102
Tulsa, OK 74114
[email protected]
Karen R. Hickman
Associate Professor
Department of Natural Resource
Ecology and Management
Oklahoma State University
008C Agricultural Hall
Stillwater, OK 74078
[email protected]
Susan Hooks
Forest Botanist
U.S. Forest Service
Ouachita National Forest
P.O. Box 1270
Hot Springs, AR 71902-1270
[email protected]
George Luker
Research Professor
Langston University
P.O. Box 1730
Langston, OK 73050
[email protected]
Steve Carol
Oklahoma Striper Association
[email protected]
67
Appendix C:
OKLAHOMA HARMFUL ALGAL
BLOOM RESPONSE PLAN
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
NATURAL RESOURCES SECTION
December 7, 2005
Table of Contents
Section Title
Page
Background………………………………………………....2
Introduction………………………………………………….2
Objectives…………………………………………………...3
Golden Alga, Prymnesium parvum……………………4
Notification
Initial Response
Contacts for P. parvum confirmation
Public health concerns
Surveillance
Announcing the End of a Bloom
Blue Green Algae………………………………………..10
Notification
Initial Response
Contact for Species Confirmation
Effects on Wildlife
Surveillance
Announcing the End of a Bloom
OKLAHOMA HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM (HAB) RESPONSE PLAN
68
BACKGROUND
Concern among state and federal agencies in Oklahoma for the effect of harmful
algal blooms on fish and wildlife and human health has grown since the first
reported HAB related death in the United States. On July 2002 in Dane County
Wisconsin a group of children took a midnight swim in a golf course pond. All
experienced acute diarrhea and abdominal pains, one child died of a seizure.
The algal toxin, Anatoxin-a, found in a sample of the boy’s tissue was enough to
have caused all the symptoms experienced by the group, including death. The
alga in the pond was Anabaena flos-aquae. Anatoxins and Saxitoxins are
predominately produced by the blue green algae genus of Anabaena and
Aphanizomenon. Microcystin is the algae toxin of most concern in the United
States. This toxin, although produced by a variety of blue-green algae species,
is predominately linked to the blue-green algae genus Microcystis. Microcystin
has been implicated in the deaths of 18 livestock last year in Utah. 49 dialysis
patients in Brazil died after inadvertent exposure to 19.5 µg/L microcystin via the
potable water supply. The symptoms and subsequent liver damage were
identical to that found with previous laboratory animal experiments involving
microcystin exposure. The State of Nebraska has 20µg/L threshold (recreational
exposure) for beach closings. New York’s threshold for (recreational exposure)
beach closures is 6 µg/L of microcystin. Cylindrospermopsis is another algae
toxin of concern.
This blue-green algae toxin, cylindrospermopsin, was
implicated in the fish kills of three lakes in Arizona last summer. The release of
this toxin from a bloom treated with copper sulfate caused the hospitalization of
over 100 children after drinking potable water in Australia.
The icthyotoxin producing “Golden Alga”, Prymnesium parvum, has caused fish
kills in Lake Texoma and Altus City Lake and major fish kills in lake across
Texas. The Texas fish kills have caused significant economic and recreational
losses.
Its current distribution is spreading in southwestern Oklahoma.
Environmental variables that trigger blooms, toxin release and toxin release are
not well understood. However, research into the life history, life cycle, necessary
environmental conditions and control and management continues to be the focus
of some funding sources. Further, the ODWC is monitoring for P. parvum on
Lake Texoma and other high risk waterbodies in an attempt to collect vital
environmental data and determine whether cells are present.
INTRODUCTION
Most HAB events are revealed primarily through investigation of fish and/or
wildlife kills. Potentially harmful algal cells can also be identified through
probabilistic sampling as proposed by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board
(OWRB) or through routine monitoring by other agencies. A one-year generic
HAB sample regime conducted by the OWRB indicated most all eutrophic
reservoirs in Oklahoma have the potential for algae toxin production. A response
plan is essential in conducting investigations into HABs whether to confirm algal
toxins have been released into the environment or identify another source of
injury or death.
69
This contingency plan is intended for state and federal agencies or organizations
that are required to respond to environmental events that cause harm to fish and
wildlife, water quality or human health. This document may also help members
of the media, public, researchers, and other local, state and federal organizations
understand how Oklahoma responds to HABs. Further, this response plan
reflects the plan objectives of adjacent states (i.e., Texas).
OBJECTIVES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
To ensure all environmental resource agencies and other
organizations are prepared to investigate and manage response to
HAB events;
To ensure public health and environmental safety through effective and
coordinated response, including monitoring, research, and assessment
during HABs and related fish mortality events
To help in communication efforts with the public and other affected
parties;
To support HAB research on conditions favoring these outbreaks,
human health threats, and possible control options;
Provide adjacent states with Oklahoma’s plan of action if HAB events
should occur across state boundaries or in a shared waterbody.
Golden alga, Prymnesium parvum
Background (Golden Alga)
Harmful algal blooms are ubiquitous world wide in marine and freshwater
systems. The state of Texas has documented fish kills from golden alga, P.
parvum, in inland waters since 1985. The spread of P. parvum has had
significant ecological and economic ramifications to Texas water bodies, which
resulted in the creation of a Texas Parks and Wildlife Golden Alga Response
Team.
In January 2004, the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC)
biologists documented a large fish kill in a tributary to the Red River. The Red
River is a major tributary of Lake Texoma Reservoir and is a Public and Private
Water Supply (PPWS). In August of 2004, a significant fish kill in Altus City Lake,
also a public water supply, was reported by ODWC regional staff members.
Both events resulted in the loss of thousands of fish and potential threat of
recurring blooms in subsequent months.
The fish kill at Lake Texoma spawned the Oklahoma Golden Alga Task Force
(OGART) which consists of members from Oklahoma resource agencies, other
states (i.e., Texas), federal agencies and academia. The purpose of OGART is
to implement appropriate response protocols and provide proactive solutions to
Prymnesium parvum (P. parvum) blooms in Lake Texoma and other waterbodies
that may be at risk. Primary components of OGART include response, control
and management, water quality, research and laboratory techniques. The
70
ODWC has also provided general information about golden alga on the ODWC
website
www.wildlifedepartment.com/index.htm and a link to the Texas parks and Wildlife
Department (TPWD) website at www.tpwd.state.tx.us/hab/ga/
Notification (Golden Alga)
Dead and dying fish usually trigger a phone call to the ODWC , although the
cause of the injury is often unknown by the caller. Golden alga blooms are
typically associated with fish that are piping at the surface, dead fish, discolored
water and foam along the shoreline. If any of these symptoms are observed,
notifications should be made to the ODWC natural resources section. See
Appendix A for a general call down list, ODWC regional fisheries office locations
and contacts, and list of ODWC game wardens for Oklahoma. In the event of a
large fish kill or event, assistance from other state and federal agencies as well
as local officials may be necessary. A list of these agencies/officials is in
Appendix A. A significant bloom may include any of the following indicators:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
fish kill that is greater than 1,000 fish;
presence of dying fish;
presence of dead or stressed freshwater mussels and/or other
wildlife;
discoloration of the water;
foam on the surface of the water;
presence of P. parvum cells in the water column;
presence of toxins in the water column;
percentage of P. parvum cells is the dominant algal species.
Initial Response (Golden Alga)
Most of the indicators listed above will not be obvious to the caller or the first
responder. If a golden algal bloom is suspected, the first course of action is to
confirm the presence or absence of p. parvum cells. The following guidelines
are for use when collecting and transporting water samples:
Live and preserved samples should be collected. Samples for confirmation
should initially be from at least three sites. Water should be collected in clean
plastic or glass containers. Be sure to rinse bottles of any prior substance before
using. Preferably, plastic HPDE 60 ml bottles should be used for all collections.
Sampling depth should be elbow-deep, or one (1) foot below the surface.
-Preserved Samples
Collect 50-100 ml and preserve with buffered Lugol’s solution to the
amber color similar to weak iced tea (1-2 drops per 100 ml). Keep the
samples refrigerated or on ice, if possible and in the dark until analysis.
Samples should be preserved in the field immediately after collection.
Put sample in Ziploc bag to avoid leaks. Include another copy of
collection information in a separate Ziploc bag in case of a leak.
71
-Live Samples
Collect 50-100 ml sample in a clean container, wrap in wet paper and
maintain as close as possible to water temperature at collection, but do
not allow the samples to overheat. Live samples should not be
refrigerated or put on ice. Sample container should be completely full
with no air space. Microscopic analysis should be done the same day
as collection or as soon as possible thereafter. Put sample in Ziploc
bag to avoid leaks. Include another copy of collection information in a
separate Ziploc bag in case of a leak.
1.
Each sample should be marked with the following information:
• Waterbody
• Site/location
• Date
• Type of analysis (i.e., p. parvum, toxin, etc.)
2.
In addition to information contained on the bottle, sample submissions
should be accompanied by a Chain of Custody (COC). See form A in
Appendix B.
3.
Samples should be collected for water chemistry analysis. Additionally,
other parameters should be collected in the field. The following is a list
of parameters that should be analyzed in the laboratory with each P.
parvum collection event. Form B found in Appendix B should be used
to record all information.
Sulfate
Nitrogen, Ammonia as N
Nitrogen, Nitrate as N
Phosphorus, Ortho as P
Total Alkalinity
•
Total Suspended Solids
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl
Nitrogen, Nitrite as N
Phosphorus, Total P
Total Hardness
Turbidity
Calcium
Magnesium
Three samples per site should be collected in 1 liter HPDE plastic
containers. One sample should contain no preservative. The other
two samples should contain nitric acid and sulfuric acid as provided
by a certified laboratory. All samples should be transported on ice
immediately to the ODEQ laboratory in Oklahoma City or other
approved laboratory after verifying with Ferrella March, Natural
Resources Section, transport and change of custody. Contact
information for ODEQ follows:
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
707 N. Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677
405-702-1000
72
•
The following parameters should be collected in the field if using an
YSI 85, Hydrolab, or other comparable equipment.
Dissolved Oxygen
% Oxygen
Specific Conductance
Salinity
Water temperature
pH
•
Other observations should be included on Form B which include:
Cloud Cover
Wave Condition
Air Temperature
Wind Speed
4.
Secchi Depth
pH
GPS Location
Wind Direction
All samples should be coordinated through the following person:
Buck Ray
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Oklahoma City Zoo Office
405-424-6062
5.
When a fish kill is involved, ODWC staff should document the kill using
the American Fisheries Society Special Publication 30: Investigation
and Monetary Values of Fish and Freshwater Mussel kills and
modifications reflected in the ODWC Fish and Mussel Kill Protocol.
This protocol involves counting, identifying and size classification (inch
or lbs depending on size). Documentation of such kills will enable the
ODWC to provide economic and recreational loss values. Form C in
Appendix B can be used to record such information.
6.
In the event of a significant kill that requires additional time, personnel,
or other agencies, the incident command system (ICS) should be
implemented. Natural Resources will coordinate this effort and identify
command posts.
7.
Dead fish and wildlife should be disposed of consistent with local
regulations and state statutes. The ODWC is not responsible for clean
up or disposal of carcasses.
Media Strategy (Golden Alga)
ODWC Media Contact: Micah Holmes - Information Supervisor (405-522-4872).
In the event of a serious fish kill, this crisis response plan is designed to
educate and inform the public, particularly anglers and other user groups,
about golden alga blooms in Oklahoma.
73
The ODWC Media Contact should be made aware of any potential golden alga
blooms by Buck Ray or Barry Bolton (Fisheries Division). Good communication
between the Media Contact and the biologists is critical to the success of the
media response plan. If the bloom occurs at Lake Texoma, the Media Contact
will contact Steve Lightfoot, with TPWD, so that communication efforts can be
complementary.
The Media Contact will coordinate with other agency personnel to draft three
separate information items
• A fact sheet with known location and effects of the bloom to be distributed to
agency personnel and other cooperating agencies
• A new release to be distributed to selected media outlets.
• Talking points for agency personnel that may be talking with the media.
These points will guide individuals to focus on certain issues (such as
perspective of the severity of the kill, not harmful to humans, economic
impact, etc…).
If possible, all media calls should be funneled through the Media Contact who will
then get them in contact with the appropriate person (biologist, Fisheries Chief,
etc…).
If necessary, the Media Contact will establish an on-site presence at the lake
where the bloom occurred and notify Rich Fuller with the ODWC Information and
Education Division for potential video coverage.
The Media Contact will call local media outlets to brief them on the current
situation.
If appropriate the Media Coordinator will coordinate a news conference. At the
conference a basic media kit will be provided including the golden alga brochure,
press release, B-roll ready for television coverage, lake map etc…
The Media Contact will communicate with ODWC personnel to place information
on the Web site or “Outdoor Oklahoma” television show.
If needed, the Media Contact will assist Fisheries personnel in coordinating and
promoting a public meeting with local citizens, marina operators and anglers.
The Media Contact will coordinate with Buck Ray announcing the end of a bloom.
Public Health Concerns (Golden Alga)
During a bloom, golden alga may release toxins in sufficient quantities to kill fish
and other gill breathing animals that come in contact with it. However, there is no
evidence that golden alga has lethal effects on other organisms or humans.
74
Even though golden alga is not linked to human health issues, the ODWC
strongly recommends that people should not pick up dead or dying fish for
consumption.
Monitoring (Golden Alga)
Surveillance of golden alga cells in affected waterbodies should continue until the
bloom has completed its cycle. However, long term monitoring should be
considered in water bodies that have been previously affected for the following
reasons: 1) to identify the early stages of a bloom; 2) collect important water
quality information to determine possible trigger mechanisms and predict when
subsequent blooms are likely to occur. All monitoring should be coordinated
through the Natural Resources Section.
Blue-green Algae, Cyanobacteria
Background (Blue-green Algae)
Blue-green algae are also called cyanobacteria because they are biologically
similar to bacteria in many ways. As single cells, large colonies and filaments,
blue-green algae grow in a wide variety of conditions and can become the
dominant algae in nutrient-rich water bodies. One of the characteristics of these
cyanobacteria is their ability to form blooms. When a bloom occurs, the water
appears to be blue-green in color and can cause taste and odor problems in
water supplies. More importantly, blue-green algae can produce toxins that can
have human health implications and can cause toxicity in fish, wildlife, domestic
animals and livestock. Anatoxins and Saxitoxins are predominately produced by
the blue green algae genus of Anabaena and Aphanizomenon. Microcystin is
the algae toxin of most concern in the United States. This toxin, although
produced by a variety of blue-green algae species, is predominately linked to the
blue-green algae genus Microcystis. Awareness is a growing need to ensure
blue-green algal toxins do not affect water treatment plants without being
adequately removed or affect. Likewise, it is important that blue green algae
blooms are monitored due to the increasing levels of nutrients that currently
being introduced into Oklahoma’s waterbodies.
Notification (Blue-green Algae)
Dead and dying fish or wildlife usually triggers a phone call to the ODWC,
although the cause of the injury is often unknown by the caller. Blue-green algae
blooms are typically associated thick scum on the surface of the water that looks
like blue-green paint. If such symptoms are observed, notifications should be
made to the ODWC natural resources section. See Appendix A for a general call
down list, ODWC regional fisheries office locations and contacts, and list of
ODWC game wardens for Oklahoma. In the event of a large fish kill or event,
assistance from other state and federal agencies as well as local officials may be
necessary. A list of these agencies/officials is in Appendix A. A significant bloom
may include any of the following indicators:
75
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
fish kill that is greater than 500-1,000 fish;
presence of dying fish;
presence of dead or stressed freshwater mussels and/or other wildlife;
discoloration of the water;
presence of blue-green algae cells in the water column;
presence of toxins in the water column;
percentage of blue-green algae cells is the dominant algal species.
Initial Response (Blue-green Algae)
Most of the indicators listed above will not be obvious to the caller or the first
responder. If a blue-green algae bloom is suspected, the first course of action is
to confirm the presence or absence of blue-green algae cells. The following
guidelines are for use when collecting and transporting water samples:
•
•
•
•
Samples should be collected in a one-liter Nalgene container
Samples should remain cool (either in a cooler with freezer packs
or refrigerated) until analysis can be performed
Samples should be processed within 24-72 hours of collection
Transfer of samples should be coordinated through Ferrella March,
Natural Resources Section
8. Each sample should be marked with the following information:
• Waterbody
• Site/location
• Date
• Type of analysis (i.e., p. parvum, toxin, etc.)
9. In addition to information contained on the bottle, sample submissions
should be accompanied by a Chain of Custody (COC). See form A in
Appendix B.
10. Samples should be collected for water chemistry analysis. Additionally,
other parameters should be collected in the field. The following is a list
of parameters that should be analyzed in the laboratory with each
collection event. Form B found in Appendix B should be used to
record all information.
Sulfate
Nitrogen, Ammonia as N
Nitrogen, Nitrate as N
Phosphorus, Ortho as P
Total Alkalinity
•
Total Suspended Solids
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl
Nitrogen, Nitrite as N
Phosphorus, Total P
Total Hardness
Turbidity
Calcium
Magnesium
Three samples per site should be collected in 1 liter HPDE plastic
containers. One sample should contain no preservative. The other
two samples should contain nitric acid and sulfuric acid as provided
by a certified laboratory. All samples should be transported on ice
76
immediately to the ODEQ laboratory in Oklahoma City or other
approved laboratory after verifying with Buck Ray, transport and
change of custody. Contact information for ODEQ follows:
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
707 N. Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73101-1677
405-702-1000
•
The following parameters should be collected in the field if using an
YSI 85, Hydrolab, or other comparable equipment.
Dissolved Oxygen
% Oxygen
Specific Conductance
Salinity
Water temperature
pH
•
Other observations should be included on Form B which include:
Cloud Cover
Wave Condition
Air Temperature
Wind Speed
Secchi Depth
pH
GPS Location
Wind Direction
11. All samples should be coordinated through the following person:
Buck Ray
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Oklahoma City Zoo Office
405-424-6062
12. When a fish kill is involved, ODWC staff should document the kill using
the American Fisheries Society Special Publication 30: Investigation
and Monetary Values of Fish and Freshwater Mussel kills and
modifications reflected in the ODWC Fish and Mussel Kill Protocol.
This protocol involves counting, identifying and size classification (inch
or lbs depending on size). Documentation of such kills will enable the
ODWC to provide economic and recreational loss values. Form C in
Appendix B can be used to record such information.
13. In the event of a significant kill that requires additional time, personnel,
or other agencies, the incident command system (ICS) should be
implemented. Natural Resources will coordinate this effort and identify
command posts.
77
14. Dead fish and wildlife should be disposed of consistent with local
regulations and state statutes. The ODWC is not responsible for clean
up or disposal of carcasses.
Media Strategy (Blue-green Algae)
ODWC Media Contact: Micah Holmes - Information Supervisor (405-522-4872).
In the event of a serious fish kill, this crisis response plan is designed to
educate and inform the public, particularly anglers and other user groups,
about harmful algal blooms in Oklahoma.
The ODWC Media Contact should be made aware of any potential harmful alga
blooms by Buck Ray or Barry Bolton (Fisheries Division). Good communication
between the Media Contact and the biologists is critical to the success of the
media response plan
The Media Contact will coordinate with other agency personnel to draft three
separate information items
• A fact sheet with known location and effects of the bloom to be distributed to
agency personnel and other cooperating agencies
• A new release to be distributed to selected media outlets.
• Talking points for agency personnel that may be talking with the media.
These points will guide individuals to focus on certain issues (such as
perspective of the severity of the kill, harmful/not harmful to humans,
precautions, economic impact, etc…).
If possible, all media calls should be funneled through the Media Contact who will
then get them in contact with the appropriate person (biologist, Fisheries Chief,
etc…).
If necessary, the Media Contact will establish an on-site presence at the lake
where the bloom occurred and notify Rich Fuller with the ODWC Information and
Education Division for potential video coverage.
The Media Contact will call local media outlets to brief them on the current
situation.
If appropriate the Media Coordinator will coordinate a news conference. At the
conference a basic media kit will be provided including a press release, B-roll
ready for television coverage, lake map etc…
The Media Contact will communicate with ODWC personnel to place information
on the Web site or “Outdoor Oklahoma” television show. If needed, the Media
Contact will assist Fisheries personnel in coordinating and promoting a public
meeting with local citizens, marina operators and anglers.
78
The Media Contact will coordinate with Buck Ray in announcing the end of a
bloom.
Public Health Concerns (Blue-green algae)
During a bloom, blue-green algae may release toxins in sufficient quantities to
harm humans and cause toxicosis to fish, wildlife, domestic animals and
livestock. If water, fish or blue-green algal products containing elevated levels of
toxins are ingested by a human, symptoms might include headache, fever,
diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting. Itchy and irritated eyes and skin
may result if a human is swims in contaminated water. If a person suspects they
may have come into contact with cyanobacterial toxins and are experiencing any
of these symptoms, any scum should be rinsed off their physician consulted
immediately.
Unlike controls available with a drinking water source contaminated with
cyanobacteria, there are very few options available once these algae accumulate
in water used for recreational activities, such as swimming, boating, wind surfing
and fishing. Blooms in recreational bodies of water are usually associated with
unpleasant odors and offensive appearance on shorelines as the scum
accumulates and decays. Although cyanobacterial toxins are probably not
absorbed through the skin, they can cause skin irritation. The toxins, if present,
can be absorbed from the water via ingestion or can become airborne and
absorbed via inhalation. Individuals should avoid swimming and other waterrelated activities in areas with dense blooms.
The ODWC strongly recommends that people should not pick up dead or
dying fish for consumption. Likewise, people should not handle dead
animals affected by blue green-algae blooms and should wash anything
that may have come in contact with the scum.
Monitoring (Blue-green Algae)
Surveillance of blue-green algae cells in affected waterbodies should continue
until the bloom has completed its cycle. However, long term monitoring should
be considered in water bodies that have been previously affected for the
following reasons: 1) to identify the early stages of a bloom; 2) collect important
water quality information to determine possible trigger mechanisms and predict
when subsequent blooms are likely to occur.
All monitoring should be
coordinated through the Natural Resources Section.
79
APPENDIX D
BOR Zebra and Quagga Mussel PCR Results for 2008
PCR Test Results
Source
USBR
#
Pisces Sampling
#
Date
Source Information
Sample
Microscope
# veligers/L
18S
ZM/QM
ITS
ZM
Mussel
18S
ITS
QM
COX1
ZM
CO
Q
BOR/KK A0056
NR
12-May-08
Conchas Lake State Park
tow net/EtOH
NR
−
NR
NR
NR
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0079
NR
24-May-08
Navajo Lake State Park
tow net/EtOH
NR
−
NR
NR
NR
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0080
NR
25-May-08
Elephant Butte Lake State Park
tow net/EtOH
NR
−
NR
NR
NR
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0113
86552
17-Jun-08
Cochiti Lake State Park
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0114
86553
17-Jun-08
Abiquiu Lake State Park
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
vw+
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0116
86551
19-Jun-08
Santa Rosa Lake State Park
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0117
86554
19-Jun-08
Ute Lake State Park
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
+++
w+?
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0136
86566
1-Jul-08
Heron Lake State Park
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0137
86555
2-Jul-08
Broken Bow Lake @ BB marina
tow net/EtOH
0.0
NR
−
vw+
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0138
86558
2-Jul-08
Hugo Lake @ Hugo Lake Marina
tow net/EtOH
0.0
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0139
86560
2-Jul-08
Pine Creek Last - Lost Rapids
tow net/EtOH
0.0
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0161
86564
2-Jul-08
Navajo Lake State Park
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0162
86556
3-Jul-08
Lake Eufaula @ Brooken Cove
tow net/EtOH
0.0
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0163
86557
3-Jul-08
Lake Eufaula @ Hwy 9 Marina
tow net/EtOH
0.0
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0164
86559
7-Jul-08
Lake Murray @ LM Lodge Pier
tow net/EtOH
0.0
NR
−
+
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0140
86561
7-Jul-08
Lake Texoma @ Highport Marina
tow net/EtOH
0.0
NR
−
vw+
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0141
86562
7-Jul-08
Lake Texoma @ Catfish Bay
tow net/EtOH
0.0
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0156
86563
10-Jul-08
Elmer Thomas @ C.D.
tow net/EtOH
0.003
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0183
86565
22-Jul-08
Conchas Lake State Park
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0224
87502
20-Aug-08
Lake Altus Lugert Live Oak Courtesy Dock
tow net/EtOH
0.0
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0220
87505
20-Aug-08 Foss Lake Main Southside Courtesy Dock Foss State Park tow net/EtOH
0.12
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0221
87506
20-Aug-08
Lake Fort Cobb Eagle's Nest Cove Courtesy Dock
tow net/EtOH
0.002
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0222
87507
20-Aug-08
Tom Steed Reservoir Main Boat Ramp Courtesy Dock
tow net/EtOH
0.0
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0137
87503
21-Aug-08
Broken Bow Lake @ BB marina
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
w+
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0223
87504
21-Aug-08
Canton Lake Big Bend Park Courtesy Dock
tow net/EtOH
0.0
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0299
87514
11-Sep-08
Hugo Lake @ Hugo Lake Marina
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0300
87515
11-Sep-08
Pine Creek @ Lost Rapids C.D.
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
+
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0304
87519
11-Sep-08
Broken Bow @ Broken Bow Marina
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
w+
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0298
87513
12-Sep-08
Texoma @ Highport Marina
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
+
+
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0302
87517
12-Sep-08
Texoma @ Catfish Bay
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0301
87516
15-Sep-08
Elmer Thomas @ C.D.
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
vw+
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0303
87518
15-Sep-08
Murray @ Murray Lodge Pier
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
w+
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0274
87508
16-Sep-08
Eufaula @ Brooken Cove
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0275
87509
16-Sep-08
Eufaula @ Hwy 9 Landing
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
BOR/KK A0277
87510
17-Sep-08
Lake Altus-Lugert Live Oak Courtesy Dock
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
−
−
n/a
n
80
BOR/KK A0278
87511
17-Sep-08
Tom Steed Lake Great Plains SP Main Boat Ramp
Courtesy Dock
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
−
−
n/a
BOR/KK A0279
89433
17-Sep-08
Lake Fort Cobb Eagle's Nest Cove Courtesy Dock
tow net/EtOH
0.0
NR
−
n/a
−
−
BOR/KK A0280
87512
18-Sep-08
Canton Lake-Courtesy Dock Big Bend Day Use Area
tow net/EtOH
NR
BOR/KK A0281
n
−
NR
−
−
−
n/a
2
tow net/EtOH
questionable
NR
−
n/a
−
−
−
n
89434
18-Sep-08
Foss Lake Marina Del Rey
BOR/KK A0281B 89435
18-Sep-08
Foss Lake Marina Del Rey - 2 questionable veligers
isolated vels
n/a
NR
−
n/a
−
−
−
BOR/KK A0356
89432
22-Sep-08
Navajo Lake State Park
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
n/a
−
−
−
BOR/KK A0353
89429
23-Sep-08
Heron Lake State Park
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
n/a
−
−
−
BOR/KK A0354
89430
25-Sep-08
Conchas Lake State Park
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
n/a
−
−
−
BOR/KK A0355
89431
9-Oct-08
Elephant Butte Lake State Park
tow net/EtOH
NR
NR
−
n/a
−
−
−
NR = Not Requested
APPENDIX E
Acronyms Defined
Acronym
ANS
ANSTF
BOR
BWM
DEQ
FTE
GRDA
LMBV
MRBP
NANPCA
NISA
NPS
NZMS
OCC
ODAFF
ODWC
OSU
OTRD
OU
OWRB
PTF
SVC
SWAP
USACE
USCG
USFWS
VHS
WGA
WRP
ZMRP
ZMTF
Definition
Aquatic Nuisance Species
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Ballast Water Management
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Full Time Employee
Grand River Dam Authority
Largemouth Bass Virus
Mississippi River Basin Regional Panel
Non-indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act
National Invasive Species Act
National Park Service
New Zealand Mudsnail
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Oklahoma State University
Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department
University of Oklahoma
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
ANS Plant Task Force
Spring Viremia of Carp
Oklahoma State Wildlife Action Plan
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Viral Hemorraghic Septicemia
Western Governors Association
Western Regional Panel
Zebra Mussel Research Program
Zebra Mussel Task Force
81
Appendix E
Public Comments
This appendix presents a summary of the oral and written comments that were
received on the aquatic nuisance species management plan. Over a six month
period after completion of the first draft, four stakeholder meetings were held and
comments were accepted.
Comments from Marley Beem, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
[E-mail correspondence]
From: Beem, Marley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:37 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: ANS Management Plan comments
Bill,
You have done a nice job of drafting the plan. One concern is how it can be made more
appealing to administrators and politicians. Some of my comments are a response to this
concern.
Thanks,
Marley Beem
Somewhere up front, it would be good to add one or more case studies from other states to
illustrate the severe economic impact of ANS and the fact that elimination is usually impossible.
Impacts on local economies would be good to show. Perhaps TVA or Florida would have
something along these lines.
Perhaps some bullets along these lines:
What’s the threat to…
• Agriculture
• Recreation
• Industry
Potential economic impacts for each ANS need to be highlighted. I’m concerned that the lack of
stated impacts for certain species like the Exotic Water Flea will cause some readers to scoff.
A graphic showing the spread of ZM in Oklahoma over time and photos of an extremely
encrusted object would strengthen the plan.
The inclusion of Ouachita rock pocketbook and Arkansas River shiner on p 29 could well backfire
with some politicians. They may have constituents who are irate about regulations to protect
these species. It is better to leave out these species names, in my opinion.
Objective 1 on p 32 needs to be changed. The first objective of a plan should not be to
“Coordinate and implement a plan.” Replace with “Objective 1: Coordination and Unification of
Management Efforts”
(also needs to be changed on p 47)
82
P 59
Marley Beem
Assistant Extension Specialist, Aquaculture/Natural Resources
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
Natural Resource Ecology and Management
- Other info is correct
P75
Add MICRA?
Response to Comments from Marley Beem, Oklahoma Cooperative
Extension Service
More information on economical, agricultural, recreational and industrial impacts was
incorporated into the Problem Definition section where appropriate.
Extra graphics were considered, but not included.
The inclusion of specific federally listed species was eliminated.
Objective 1 was not changed on page 32 or 47.
Contact information was updated.
MICRA was not added to Appendix D, as it was not addressed in the plan text.
Comments from Jeanetta Cooper, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture,
Food & Forestry
[E-mail correspondence]
From: Jeanetta Cooper [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:54 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Mitch Broiles
Subject: ANS Plan
Additions and corrections (in blue) to page 28, ODAFF:
ODAFF is the agency charged with licensing aquaculture facilities, the private commercial
production of fish, frogs, or other aquatic species OAC 35:50-1-1 prohibits the importation or
exportation of minnows and other fish species that are subject to the provisions of Sections 4105, 4-115, and 7-602 of Oklahoma Statute Title 29. ODAFF conducts at least one inspection
every two (2) years of each licensed aquaculture operation.
It is unlawful for any person to operate a concentrated animal feeding operation without first
obtaining a license from the State Board of Agriculture (Oklahoma Statute Title 2, §9-208).
Response to Comments from Jeanetta Cooper, Oklahoma Department of
Agriculture, Food & Forestry
Additions and corrections were made as specified.
83
Comments from Everett Laney, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
[Word Document]
Please consider the following recommendations for changes to the OANSDMP:
1)
Remove all the capital letters from the section headings. They’re not in the table of
contents, and they’re not needed to track the sections of the document in addition to the
page numbers.
2)
Pg 7, line 14 – change “escaped” to “moved downstream”
3)
Pg 8, 2nd set of bullets – add “create sufficient funding and personnel to support the plan”
4)
Pg 8, par following 2nd set of bullets, line 3 – who is the “State Secretary of Interior”? I don’t
see them in App B, as such.
5)
Pg 10, par 2, line 3 – change “these” to “they” and delete “four species”
6)
Pg 10, par 2, line 6 – change “that Asian” to “that the four species of Asian”
7)
Pg 11, par 3 – should we include a sentence about them being a boating hazard because
they jump out of the water?
8)
Pg 13, par 6, line 1 – change “area” to “are”
9)
Pg 14, par 2, line 12 – there have been several findings on boats preparing to launch at
marinas. I recommend “Zebra Mussels have been discovered on several boats by marina
personnel who prevented the infested boats from being launched in the lakes.”
10)
Pg 14, par 3, line 9 – I would delete the sentence speculating that there may be other
species of Dreissenidae in the Great Lakes.
11)
Pg 22 – the last sentence that goes to pg 23 needs rewritten.
12)
Pg 22, par 2, line 3 – change “it” to “It”
13)
Pg 29, par 3, line 8 – after “…1996.” insert “Other Federal Laws indirectly promote the
control of non-indigenous and invasive species by providing direction or guidance to
properly manage public lands and programs. Therefore, the control of invasives is
indirectly authorized. For example, the Endangered Species Act could require controls if
an ANS was shown to threaten the survival of a federally listed species.”
14)
Pg 30 – At the meeting we mentioned that we left out the BOR and Forest Service. But,
another Federal agency we did not mention was the BIA. They should be included.
15)
Pg 30 – replace the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) paragraph with the following:
The USACE administers the only Federally authorized research programs directed to
manage and control non-indigenous and nuisance species. The Aquatic Plant Control
Research Program (APCRP) develops technology for the management of non-indigenous
aquatic plant species. The Zebra Mussel Research Program (ZMRP), which was
expanded into the Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Program (ANSRP) conducts
interdisciplinary research on the prevention, control, and management of aquatic nuisance
species that impact USACE projects and public facilities. The programs are managed by
the USACE Environmental Research and Development Center (ERDC) in Vicksburg, MS.
84
ERDC has developed Information System Models for Plant Management, Aquatic Plants,
and Zebra Mussels.
In July of 2005 a USACE Invasive Species Leadership Team (ISLT) was formed to fulfill
Federal agency duties under Executive Order 13112. Comprised primarily of Division and
District representatives, their responsibilities include 1) providing recommendations to
headquarters, 2) providing strategic direction to research programs, 3) representing the
USACE on regional invasive species councils 4) developing and implementing cost
effective strategies to address invasive species problems that affect USACE water
resource management missions, and 5) coordinating team initiatives with all concerned
interests. The ISLT is currently developing a USACE Invasive Species Management
Policy.
The Tulsa District USACE manages over 1.1 million acres of land and water resources on
35 reservoirs in Oklahoma, southeast Kansas, and northern Texas. Major facilities include
five hydropower dams and 138 miles of the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System. The five
locks and dams provide national and international waterway traffic to the Port of Catoosa.
Land and water based recreation is provided at the reservoirs for approximately 25 million
visitors each year from all across the nation. This unrestricted visitation provides unlimited
opportunities for the importation and infestation of non-indigenous and nuisance species by
navigation and overland traffic.
16)
Pg 32, par 1, line 6 – change “notional” to “national”
17)
Pg 32, par 2, line 3 – change “native species” to “native species and habitat”
18)
Pg 33, Task 1A9: - delete. Any sea-going ships that come up the navigation system will not
have ballast water by the time they get here.
19)
Pg 35, USACE – replace the paragraph with;
The Tulsa District initiated and has served as the lead agency for the Oklahoma Zebra
Mussel Task Force since 1993. They provide I&E material, conduct training, give
presentations to water interests across the state, mailed information notices to water users
and policy makers, provides interviews with media sources, and maintain a Zebra Mussel
link on their web page to educate the public and agencies of the hazards of ANS
introductions.
20)
Pg 38, USACE – replace the paragraph with;
Lake staff monitors Zebra Mussel presence/absence and ANS plants at USACE lakes.
Local water users are educated as to the potential pathways for infestations. Cooperation
is solicited to monitor and detect ANS being brought to the lakes.
Tulsa District staff shares information with the ZMTF of changes and activities locally and
across the nation; support monitoring and studies by other agencies and academia; and
provide I&E materials and training.
21)
Pg 39, Task 3A4: change the lead agency to the (FWS)
22)
Pg 40, USACE – replace the paragraph with;
The ERDC has produced numerous Technical Notes detailing controls for ANS and
maintains Information Systems on their website and on compact disk for Zebra Mussels,
Plant Management, and Aquatic Plants.
The Tulsa District cooperates with water users being impacted by Zebra Mussels to
educate them on possible control methods.
85
The Tulsa District monitors ANS plants at USACE lakes and implements controls as
needed.
23)
Pg 41, ODWC, line 4 – change “for” to “from”
24)
Pg 42, USACE – replace the paragraph with;
The Tulsa District initiated and has served as the lead agency for the Oklahoma Zebra
Mussel Task Force since 1993. They provide I&E material, conduct training, give
presentations to water interests across the state, mailed information notices to water users
and policy makers, provides interviews with media sources, and maintain a Zebra Mussel
link on their web page to educate the public and agencies of the hazards of ANS
introductions.
25)
Pg 44, OSU – change “zebra mussel populations within the Tallgrass Prairie Region” to
zebra mussel populations at lakes within the Tallgrass Prairie Region”. You could specify
what lakes.
26)
Pg 44 – add “USACE”
The Tulsa District monitors the USACE lakes for ANS presence/absence and densities.
They also support agency and academia research at the lakes, and keep informed of
impacts to water users.
The Tulsa District is actively involved in national efforts and keeps informed of Zebra
Mussel control and eradication research. Updates are provided to the ZMTF.
The ERDC has produced numerous Technical Notes detailing controls for ANS and
maintains Information Systems on their website and on compact disk for Zebra Mussels,
Plant Management, and Aquatic Plants.
27)
Pg 52 – delete Ballast water
28)
Pg 60 – add to the ANS Plant Task Force; Jim Harris, USACE, 1645 S. 101 E. Ave, Tulsa,
OK, 74128, [email protected].
Pg 61 – add to the ANS Golden Alga Task Force; Tony Clyde, USACE, 1645 S. 101 E. Ave,
Tulsa, OK 74128, [email protected].
Response to Comments from Everett Laney, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Typographical, grammatical, and formatting errors were corrected.
Changes to sections concerning ballast waster were incorporated.
All sections concerning the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were modified as requested.
All other small changes were considered and incorporated where appropriate.
86
Comments from Stacey Day, Oklahoma Conservation Commission
[Word Document]
OCC Comments / Additions to the ANS Management Plan
Section E. Existing Authorities and Programs
Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC)
Under Oklahoma Statute Title 27A O.S. § 3-2-106, the OCC has been designated to “act as the
management agency having jurisdiction over and responsibility for directing NPS pollution
prevention programs outside the jurisdiction or control of cities or towns in Oklahoma. The
Commission, otherwise, shall be responsible for all identified non-point source categories except
silviculture, urban storm water runoff and industrial runoff.”
The OCC will “monitor, evaluate and assess waters of the state to determine the condition of
streams and rivers impacted by nonpoint source pollution. In carrying out this area of
responsibility, the Conservation Commission shall serve as the technical lead agency for nonpoint
source pollution categories as defined in Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act or other
subsequent federal or state nonpoint source programs.” In addition, the OCC will administer the
Blue Thumb volunteer monitoring and education program and “provide assistance to the
Oklahoma Water Resources Board on lake projects through stream and river monitoring,
assessing watershed activities impacting lake water quality, and assisting in the development of a
watershed management plan.”
Section F. Objectives, strategies, etc.
Current Agency Activities
OCC
The OCC has adopted a HACCP plan as described by the OWRB. Field personnel operate
under these guidelines in order to decontaminate all equipment after use.
Objective 3:
Current Agency Activities
OCC
The OCC employs a number of field personnel who regularly monitor water quality, conduct
habitat evaluations, and sample macroinvertebrates and fish in streams across Oklahoma. The
OCC field staff will document and report any nuisance species sighted during field activities. In
addition, the Blue Thumb program has trained volunteers who monitor water quality across the
state, and these individuals will look for and report nuisance species.
Objective 4:
Current Agency Activities
OCC
The OCC field personnel operate under HACCP guidelines in order to decontaminate all
equipment after use and, thus, reduce the risk of spreading ANS.
87
Objective 5:
Current Agency Activities
OCC
The OCC has incorporated information about ANS into its Blue Thumb educational program.
This program has approximately 100 active volunteers and offers trainings to new volunteers
about six times per year. In addition, the OCC will include educational material about ANS in its
area-specific projects, where applicable. For example, one of the current OCC watershed
projects is in the Grand Lake area, and information about zebra mussels (present in that area) will
be given to participants in watershed activities there.
“Implementation Table”--OCC will be a cooperative agency for the following tasks:
1B4
1B5
1B6
1B7
2B4
2B5
3A2
3A3
3A5
4A3
5A5
5D2
6A3
6B1
6B2
6B3
Response to Comments from Stacey Day, Oklahoma Conservation
Commission
All existing authorities and programs and current agency activities regarding the Oklahoma
Conservation Commission were added or revised.
The Oklahoma Conservation Commission was added as a cooperative agency for all specified
tasks on the implementation table.
88
Comments from Sam Ziara, Grand River Dam Authority
[Word Document]
Recommended revisions for the Oklahoma Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan
E. Existing Authorities and Programs (beginning on pg. 25)
GRDA
The Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) is a state agency that provides hydroelectric and fossil
fuel generated electricity. Under Oklahoma statutes, GRDA has jurisdiction over the Grand River
and its tributaries (Oklahoma Statute Title 82, § 861 and 862). GRDA is a conservation and
reclamation district encompassing 24 counties in Oklahoma.
The GRDA, Office of Ecosystems Management (OEM) was formed to manage, conserve, and
enhance the natural resources found on GRDA property. OEM works closely with Federal and
state agencies to insure that these natural resources will be there for future generations to enjoy.
F. Objectives, Strategies, Actions, & Cost Estimates
Objective 2: Prevent the introduction of new ANS into Oklahoma (beginning on pg 34)
Current Agency Activities:
GRDA
GRDA has participated on the Oklahoma Zebra Mussel Task Force for 3 years and has recently
partnered with Protect Your Waters, a web site sponsored by the ANS Task Force. GRDA has
printed and distributed zebra mussel alert cards, provided funds to build the zebra mussel display
at the Oklahoma Aquarium, and has recently produced a public service announcement (PSA)
about preventing the spread of zebra mussels in Oklahoma waters. GRDA believes that
prevention through education is the key in battling this and all invasive species.
Objective 3: Detect, monitor, and eradicate ANS (beginning on pg. 39)
Current Agency Activities:
GRDA has actively monitored for the presence of zebra mussels in GRDA waters and has helped
train volunteers from the Oklahoma Water Watch organization to sample for and identify zebra
mussel veligers and adults. GRDA has also purchased and installed signage for all GRDA lakes
informing boaters about the possible threat of zebra mussels in GRDA waters. Recently, GRDA
implemented control measures for controlling zebra mussels by using chlorine dioxide (ClO2) at a
GRDA owned facility. The cost of this treatment was approximately $30,000.
Objective 3: Inform the public, policy makers, natural resource workers, private industry,
and user groups about the risks and impacts of ANS (beginning on pg. 41)
Current Agency Activities:
GRDA has aggressively campaigned for the prevention of ANS at boat shows, fishing
tournaments, tourism centers, and at elementary school functions. GRDA representatives have
performed risk assessments for the water treatment facilities. GRDA is hoping to unveil the Zebra
Mussel display at the Oklahoma Aquarium by September of 2007, and will be covered by the
local media. The purpose of this display will be to raise public awareness about ANS and to
educate the public, specifically, about zebra mussels and their associated impacts.
89
Contact information for John Money (Oklahoma Aquarium) as requested by Jeff Boxrucker;
John Money
Curator Oklahoma Aquarium
300 Aquarium Drive
P.O. Box 2007
Jenks, OK 74037
(918) 734-0122 cell
(918) 528-1552 office [email protected]
Response to Comments from Sam Ziara, Grand River Dam Authority
All existing authorities and programs and current agency activities regarding the Grand River
Dam Authority were added or revised.
Contact information for John Money was added.
Comments from Karen Hickman, Oklahoma State University
[Oral and Track Changes on Word Document]
Good Introduction…has flow to it along with the appropriate information needed to become
relevant. Objectives can be met, but I don’t think introduction of all ANS can be prevented: maybe
help reduce introduction. They are realistic if ODWC will help funding. Outcomes are good.
Suggested that legislation should be changed to increase fines. Increased fines could better
deter introductions, and fines could be used as a source of funding.
Concerning objective 1: Develop a set of regulations for control efforts of ANS, leading to public and
recreational responses.
Suggested that Tamarisk be added to the plan.
Add Oklahoma State University as a cooperative agency on implementation table concerning
monitoring.
Response to Comments from Karen Hickman, Oklahoma State University
Comments regarding legislation and regulation changes were taken into account for action at a
later date, but not incorporated into the plan.
Tamarisk was not added to the plan.
Oklahoma State University was added as a cooperative agency on the implementation table.
90
Comments from Ellen Tejan, The Nature Conservancy
[Oral]
Suggested that Tamarisk be added to the plan.
Response to Comments from Ellen Tejan, The Nature Conservancy
Tamarisk was not added to the plan
Comments from Susan Hooks, U.S. Forest Service
[Oral]
Need more detail on the priority ranking of species. (Page 48) May need to set priorities for
different parameters (e.g. education & outreach, prevention, management etc.)
Response to Comments from Susan Hooks, U.S. Forest Service
Comment was taken into consideration. Priorities for action section was revised.
91
2008 Oklahoma Aquatic Nuisance Species
And Boating Survey
By: Curtis Tackett
Aquatic Nuisance Species Biologist
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
1801 N. Lincoln
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
September 2009
92
List of Figures
1. Zebra/Quagga Mussel Awareness
2. Asian Carp Awareness
3. Hydrilla Awareness
4. Golden Alga Awareness
5. White Perch Awareness
6. VHS Awareness
7. Zebra Mussel Importance to Prevent Spread
8. Golden Alga Importance to Prevent Spread
9. Hydrilla Importance to Prevent Spread
10. VHS Importance to Prevent Spread
11. Asian Carp Importance to Prevent Spread
12. White Perch Importance to Prevent Spread
13. Best Sources of ANS Information
14. Most Effective Influences for Preventing the Spread of ANS
15. Did You Use a Boat During 2008?
16. Distance Between Waterbodies That Boats Were Moved
17. Did You Transport Your Boat Outside the State in 2008?
18. Did You Move Boats Along Waterways From Infested Waters to Uninfested Waters?
19. Do You Take Any Precautions Before Transporting Your Boat?
20. Did You Boat On Infested Waters?
21. How Likely Is It That You Will Take Precautions In The Future?
22. How Often Do You Visually Inspect Your Boat?
23. How Often Do You Drain Water From Your Boat?
24. How Often Do You Avoid The Release Of Live Unwanted Bait?
25. How Often Do You Remove Aquatic Plants and Animals From Your Equipment
26. How Often Do You Flush The Motor's Cooling System With Tap Water?
27. How Often Do You Rinse Your Boat With High Pressure and/or Hot Water?
28. How Often Do You Allow Your Boat To Dry For At Least Five Days?
29. Have ANS Affected Your Recreational Experience?
30. How Much More $ Would You Be Willing To Spend If The Additional Dollars
Went Towards ANS?
31. Do You Fish With Live Baitfish?
32. Where Do You Acquire Your Baitfish?
33. What Do You Do With Your Live Baitfish After Fishing?
34. Would You Be Willing To Drain Water From Your Boat?
35. Would You Be Willing To Use Live Baitfish From a Certified Dealer Only?
36. Use Live Bait Only From the Body of Water It Came From
93
List of Tables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Sources of ANS Information
How Effective Would this be in Getting You to Take Action?
This Has Already Led Me to Action
What Type of Boat(s) Did You Use During 2008?
How Long Were Your Boats In The Water Before Being Moved To a Different
Waterbody?
How Long Were Your Boats Out Of The Water Before Being Moved to a
Different Waterbody?
Number of Times Boats Were Moved Certain Distances in Miles
If You Don't Take Precautions, Why Not?
How Did You Know the Waters Were Infested With ANS?
94
Survey Results
General Knowledge of Aquatic Nuisance Species
The respondents were asked to rank their knowledge of six aquatic nuisance species:
zebra mussels/quagga mussels, golden alga, hydrilla, Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia
(VHS), Asian carp, and white perch. The ranking categories included “a large amount, a
moderate amount, a small amount or none”.
There were only two ANS out of six where there were more respondents who knew at
least a small amount of information
Figure 1. Zebra/Quagga Mussel
about the species than knew nothing
Awareness
at all. These include zebra/quagga
A Large
(n=1480,
missing=25)
Amount
mussels and Asian carp.
A Moderate
Zebra/quagga mussels were the most
Amount
well-known of the six species with
19%
22%
A Small
78% knowing at least some
Amount
information about the species
None
25%
(Figure 1). This species also had the
34%
highest ranking of “a large amount”
at 19%. These results were
somewhat expected because of the
increasing publicity of zebra/quagga mussels and the devastating apparent threats that
they pose to our economy and our environment.
Figure 2. Asian Carp Awareness
Asian Carp were the second most
well-known with 70% of the
A Large
respondents having at least some
Am ount
knowledge of the species (Figure 2).
9%
A Moderate
This group of fish includes bighead,
Am ount
30%
black, grass and silver carp. This
25%
A Small
group of fish also had the second
Am ount
highest ranking of
None
36%
“a large amount” at 9%. The
awareness of this species is probably
related to first hand encounters.
Anglers occasionally snag Asian carp as a result of by-catch. Asian carp have been
present in Oklahoma for several years but some species don’t seem to have plentiful
breeding populations as of today.
(n=1461, missing=44)
Figure 3. Hydrilla Awareness
Hydrilla was ranked third with 44%
of respondents having at least some
knowledge about the species
(Figure 3). Although it ranked third,
it was well behind zebra/quagga
mussels and Asian carp when it
came to general knowledge. The
majority of the respondents that had
at least some knowledge of hydrilla
only knew “a small amount” at 25%
(n =1444, missing=61)
A Large
Amount
6%
A Moderate
Amount
A Small
Amount
13%
56%
25%
None
95
and the “large amount” category only ranked at 6%. This submerged aquatic plant draws
a lot of attention and has been one of the largest concerns to Oklahoma. Hydrilla is
currently found in Lakes Murray, Arbuckle and Sooner.
Golden alga is a species that has
Figure 4. Golden Alga Awareness
the potential to cause large fish
(n =1450, missing=55)
A Large
4%
kills in Oklahoma. It ranked
Amount
closely behind hydrilla with 42%
A Moderate
of the respondents having at least
12%
Amount
some knowledge (Figure 4).
A Small
Only 4% of respondents knew “a
Amount
26%
large amount” about this species.
58%
None
This species has a well
established population and
usually causes blooms in Lake
Texoma every year. Lake
Texoma is a highly popular lake and this most likely attributes to the fair amount of
awareness that golden alga receives.
White perch are a highly
competitive species of fish which
9%
have established populations in
A Large
Lakes Sooner, Kaw and
Am ount
Keystone. This species ranked
A Moderate
Am ount
next to last in general knowledge.
24%
A Sm all
Well over half, 64%, of
Am ount
64%
respondents knew nothing at all
None
about white perch (Figure 5).
Only 3% of the respondents
knew “a large amount” about this
species. This low ranking of
general knowledge is probably due to the fact that people rarely encounter white perch.
This species is also easily mistaken as a white bass therefore misidentification probably
plays a large role.
Figure 5. White Perch Awareness
( n =1456, missing=49)
3%
Figure 6. VHS Awareness
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia
ranks last when it comes to general
A Large
knowledge of the species. Out of
Am ount
the respondents, only 17% knew
A Moderate
12%
Am ount
anything at all about VHS (Figure
A Sm all
6). This species had the lowest
Am ount
rankings in the three categories of
83%
None
at least some knowledge. VHS is
a somewhat new fish disease that
is mostly found in the Great Lakes
region. It has not yet been found
in Oklahoma and this most likely directly attributes to the 83% of respondents having no
knowledge of it.
(n =1432, missing=73)
1%
4%
96
The importance of taking precautions to prevent the spread of ANS
Boaters were asked to rank the
importance of preventing the
Figure 7. Zebra Mussell Importance
spread of each aquatic nuisance
to Prevent Spread
(n = 1483, missing=22)
species from the previous
question. Respondents were
Very Important
asked to rank the importance
1%
17%
into five categories: very
Somewhat
1%
Important
important, somewhat important,
10%
Not Very
not very important, not at all
Important
71%
important and don’t know.
Not At All
These responses were generally
Important
correlated with the general
Don't Know
knowledge question. If boaters
had a high amount of knowledge
about the ANS, then the level of
importance to help prevent the
Figure 8. Golden Alga Importance to
spread was usually high. Overall
Prevent Spread
(n =1460, missing=45)
the responses for “not very
important” and “not at all
Very Important
important” were fairly low for
Somewhat
each species (Figures 7 through
Important
44%
40%
12). Nearly half of the
Not Very
respondents for each ANS,
Important
except zebra/quagga mussels and
Not At All
Asian carp, didn’t know if it was
Important
12.8%
Don't Know
important to prevent the spread.
1%
2%
This clearly shows that we must
increase our outreach efforts for
these species.
Figure 9. Hydrilla Importance to
Only 19% of the respondents
Prevent Spread
were unsure about the
(n =1460, missing=45)
importance to prevent spreading
Very Important
of zebra/quagga mussels (Figure
7). More than three quarters,
Somewhat
81%, of the respondents felt like
Important
39%
40%
it was at least somewhat
Not Very
important to prevent the spread.
Important
Not At All
Asian carp ranked second in
Important
16%
highest responses of importance
Don't Know
(Figure 11). At least 61% of the
1%
4%
respondents felt it was at least
somewhat important to prevent
spread of these species. VHS and white perch had the lowest responses for “very
important” and the highest responses for the “don’t know” category (Figures 10 and 12.
This is directly correlated to the general knowledge question.
97
Figure 10. VHS Importance to
Prevent Spread
(n = 1446, missing=59)
Very Important
Somewhat
Important
Not Very
Important
Not At All
Important
Don't Know
36%
53%
9%
0%
2%
Figure 11. Asian Carp Importance to
Prevent Spread
(n =1466, missing=39)
Very Important
Somewhat
Important
Not Very
Important
Not At All
Important
Don't Know
31%
43%
2%
18%
6%
Figure 12. White Perch Importance to
Prevent Spread
(n =1458, missing=47)
Very Important
Somewhat
Important
Not Very
Important
Not At All
Important
Don't Know
31%
48%
13%
2%
6%
98
Sources of Information on ANS
Boaters were asked four series of questions that are related to general sources of ANS
information and how effective different sources would be in getting them to take actions
to help prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species. These questions were designed to
give us some insight on how future efforts for public awareness and education could be
directed or enhanced.
From a list of twenty two sources, boaters were asked if they have heard of or read about
ANS. These sources are in four categories: media sources, events, fishing or boating
sources, and other sources. Nearly half of the respondents had gained knowledge about
ANS through sources such as newspaper articles, magazine or newsletters, television
programs, and fishing or boating pamphlets. These sources were somewhat expected to
yield high rankings because of the various publications and materials available to the
public. Television or news programs had the highest ranking with 48% (Table 1).
Magazine or newsletters and newspaper articles followed shortly after with 48% and
45%. Fishing or boating pamphlets were good sources or information with 42% and
signs/information at marinas or boat ramps followed shortly after with 40%. Low
responses of 10% or less of the respondents having heard or read ANS information
included radio public service announcements, billboards, and conferences, presentations
or meetings. These results were also somewhat expected because of the lack of efforts.
Oklahoma has made little to no investments in billboard exposure and presentations and
conferences with the general public are few and far between. People typically don’t want
to attend and sit through long presentations and held conferences due to time and
schedule constraints.
99
Yes
No
Newspaper Articles
Magazine or Newsletter Articles
Television News or Programs
Radio News or Programs
Television Public Service
Announcements
Radio Public Service
Announcements
Billboards
Internet Web Sites
Conferences, Presentations, or
Meetings
An Educational Exhibit or Display
Fishing Contests, Derby, or Sailboat
Regattas
Booth at a Sport or Fishing Show or
Similar Event
Fishing or Boating Regulation
Pamphlets
Boat Registration Materials
Creel Surveys or Inspection
Programs at Boat Launch
Signs/Information Provided at
Marina or Boat Launch
Signs/Information Provided at a
Bait Shop
Fish, Boat, Sport, or Environmental
Organization
Brochures, Identification Cards, or
Fact Sheets
Books
Educational Videos
45%
47%
48%
12%
18%
Hot Line or Information
Clearinghouse
Table 1. Sources of ANS
Information (n=1505)
33%
30%
31%
60%
55%
Don't
Know
8%
8%
8%
12%
12%
No
Opinion
14%
15%
14%
16%
15%
5%
65%
14%
16%
7%
15%
8%
64%
57%
67%
13%
12%
10%
16%
17%
16%
18%
13%
56%
61%
10%
10%
16%
16%
28%
49%
9%
15%
42%
35%
8%
15%
17%
13%
56%
61%
11%
10%
16%
15%
40%
38%
8%
14%
23%
53%
9%
15%
19%
55%
11%
15%
27%
49%
10%
15%
10%
6%
65%
69%
10%
10%
16%
16%
1%
73%
11%
16%
100
Best sources of ANS information
Respondents were asked to choose up to four of the best sources of which they have
heard about aquatic nuisance species (Figure 13). This referred to the previous question
which had twenty two possible information sources. As compared to Table 1, these
responses were nearly identical. The top responses for the best sources of information
were newspaper and magazine articles, newsletters, fishing and boating pamphlets, and
signs at marinas or boat docks. The responses that received the lowest amount of credit
were billboards, public service announcements, angler surveys, books and educational
videos.
Figure 13. Best Sources of ANS
Information
(n =1505, multiple responses allowed)
Other
1%
Hot Line/Info Clearinghouse
Educational Videos
1%
Books
1%
Brochures/Other Printed Materials
5%
Outdoors Organization
2%
Signs/Info at a Bait Shop
4%
Signs/Info at Marina or Boat Launch
11%
Angler Surveys at Boat Launches
1%
Boat Registration Materials
3%
Fishing/Boating Regs Pamphlets
10%
Booth at an Outdoor Show
5%
2%
Fishing Contests/Boating Events
An Educational Exhibit/Display
3%
2%
Conferences/Presentations/Meetings
Internet Web Sites
3%
Billboards
1%
Public Service Announcements
1%
4%
TV Public Service Announcements
Radio News/Programs
TV News/Programs
Magazine/Newsletter Articles
Newspaper Articles
2%
12%
13%
13%
Out of 100% Total Responses=2923
101
Getting people to take action
Respondents were asked how effective certain things and events would be in getting them
to take steps to prevent the spread of ANS. The answer choices were ranked on an
effectiveness scale and these included very effective, somewhat effective, and not very
effective. In addition, the survey also asked if these certain things and events have
already led them to take action.
"A desire to keep ANS out of our waters" had the most responses (65%) for "how
effective it would be to get you to take action" (Table 2). "A desire to prevent damage to
your boat" had the second most responses (63%) for this category. Respondents also had
a strong opinion that it was a sense of personal responsibility (58%). "Signs at marinas or
boat ramps" (56%) and "fishing and boating pamphlets" (47%) came in fourth and fifth
for the most responses in this category.
The number one response for already leading people to take action (Table 3) was "a sense
of personal responsibility" (31%). This was followed very closely by "a desire to keep
ANS out of our waters" (28%). "A desire to prevent damage to my boat" (26%) and
"talking with acquaintances and friends" (22%) were also effective sources of
information that have led people to take action against ANS. "Signs at marinas and boat
ramps also ranked high in this category at 17%.
Boaters value their property and when there is a possibility that their personal boat or
equipment may become damaged, they are willing to take measures for prevention. The
survey shows that this is of great concern because 63% said it would be effective and
26% said it has already led them to action. Over half (58%) of the respondents felt like it
is their personal responsibility to take action. People want to protect the waters that they
use and therefore feel like it is their responsibly to help stop the spread of ANS.
The least effective influences in getting people to take action are presentations,
educational programs, radio broadcasts, angler surveys, enforcement checks, billboards
and internet web sites. Respondents said that radio broadcast (39%) and internet web
sites (22%) would not be very effective influences. ANS billboards have not been used
in Oklahoma as an awareness tool due to costs but some states are investing in billboards
as a way to educate and outreach to the public. Conferences and workshops (21%) and
videos or presentations (20%) were also looked at as very ineffective influences.
102
Table 2. How Effective Would
This Be In Getting You To Take
Action?
(multiple responses allowed)
Would Be
Very
Effective
Would
Would Be Not Be
Somewhat Very
Effective Effective
Talking With Friends or Acquaintances
34%
39%
8%
19%
A Sense of Personal Responsibility
58%
22%
3%
17%
A Desire to Keep ANS Out of Our
Waters
Regulations to Prevent the Transport of
ANS
A Desire to Prevent Damage to my Boat
65%
16%
2%
17%
43%
29%
12%
17%
63%
15%
5%
17%
Enforcement Checks on the Road or at
Boat Launches to Catch Violators
Media Sources (Newspapers and Radio
and TV News/Programs)
TV or Radio Public Service
Announcements
Billboards
38%
28%
16%
18%
43%
33%
7%
17%
41%
34%
8%
17%
25%
39%
18%
18%
Magazine or Newsletter Articles
35%
37%
11%
18%
Internet Web Sites
25%
34%
22%
19%
Fishing or Boating Regulation Pamphlets
47%
30%
5%
17%
Conferences or Workshops for Boaters
and Anglers
Brochures, Species ID Cards, Fact Sheets,
or Other Printed Materials
Signs at Marinas or Boat Launches
23%
38%
21%
18%
42%
33%
8%
17%
56%
23%
4%
17%
Creel Surveys or Inspection/Education
Programs on Roads or at Boat Launches
Videos or Other Presentations to Boating,
Lake, and Sporting Associations
Traveler Info or Low Power Radio
Broadcasts Along Roads
Fines that Must be Paid by Violators
28%
39%
15%
18%
23%
40%
20%
18%
11%
31%
39%
19%
39%
27%
16%
19%
103
No
Response
Most effective influences for preventing the spread
The final series of questions pertaining to how people are influenced and motivated to
prevent the spread of ANS, the respondents were asked to choose four of the influences that
would be the most effective. These responses were somewhat related to the prior question
but were not a mirror image. A desire to keep ANS out of Oklahoma's waters, a desire to
prevent damage to their boat, and a sense of personal responsibility all ranked highest at 12%
(Figure 14). Again, radio broadcasts, presentations and conferences all scored very low.
Figure 14. Most Effective Influences For
Preventing The Spread Of ANS
(n =1505, multiple responses allowed)
Traveler info/radio broadcasts
Videos or presentations to sporting associations
>1%
1%
Creel surveys/inspection education programs
2%
Signs/Info at a Marina or Boat Launch
9%
Brochures/Other Printe d Materials
Conferences for boaters and anglers
4%
1%
Fishing or boating regulation pamphlets
Internet web sites
6%
2%
Magazine or new sletter articles
Billboards
3%
2%
TV or radio public service announcem ents
4%
Media sources
6%
Fines that must be paid by violators
6%
Enforcement checks a t boat launches
6%
La ws to prevent the transport of ANS
7%
A desire to prevent damage to my boat
12%
A desire to keep ANS out of our w aters
12%
A sense of pe rsonal responsibility
12%
Talking with friends or acquaintances
5%
Out of 100% Total Responses=3585
104
This has already led me to action
In the final column, respondents were asked which preventative steps had already led them to
take action. They were asked to simply answer yes or no to each of the different approaches.
A sense of personal responsibility scored highest at 31% shortly followed by talking with
friends, preventing damage to boat, and keeping ANS out of Oklahoma's waters (Table 3).
Signs at marinas and boat ramps scored respectively with 17% of the respondents saying it
has led them to take action.
Table 3.
This Has Already Led Me To Action…
(n=1505) multiple responses allowed
Talking With Friends or Acquaintances
A Sense of Personal Responsibility
A Desire to Keep ANS Out of Our Waters
Regulations to Prevent the Transport of ANS
A Desire to Prevent Damage to my Boat
Enforcement Checks on the Road or at Boat Launches
to Catch Violators
Media Sources (Newspapers and Radio and TV
News/Programs)
TV or Radio Public Service Announcements
Billboards
Magazine or Newsletter Articles
Internet Web Sites
Fishing or Boating Regulation Pamphlets
Conferences or Workshops for Boaters and Anglers
Brochures, Species ID Cards, Fact Sheets, or Other
Printed Materials
Signs at Marinas or Boat Launches
Creel Surveys or Inspection/Education Programs on
Roads or at Boat Launches
Videos or Other Presentations to Boating, Lake, and
Sporting Associations
Traveler Info or Low Power Radio Broadcasts Along
Roads
Fines that Must be Paid by Violators
105
Yes
No
22%
31%
28%
10%
26%
6%
26%
19%
20%
34%
22%
38%
No
Response
53%
50%
52%
55%
52%
56%
14%
31%
56%
9%
5%
14%
7%
16%
4%
11%
34%
38%
30%
36%
28%
40%
33%
56%
57%
56%
57%
56%
57%
56%
17%
5%
28%
38%
55%
57%
4%
39%
57%
2%
41%
57%
6%
38%
56%
Did you use a boat during the 2008 boating season?
In this question, respondents were asked whether they used a boat in the 2008 boating season
or not. According to the survey, 81% of the people surveyed used a boat during the 2008
season while 19% said they did not use a
boat (Figure 15). The people who
Figure 15. Did You Use A Boat
answered yes continued answering more
During 2008? (n =1505)
questions about boating while the people
who answered no were told to skip to
19%
question 18. This shows that a large
Yes
percentage of people who have registered
boats actually use their boats on an annual
81%
basis.
No
What type of boat(s) did you use during 2008?
The people who answered yes to using a boat during the 2008 season were then asked what
type or types of boats they used. The data in table 4 shows the most used boat was the small
powerboat with 680 users followed by the large powerboat with 439 users and in third was
personal watercraft with 220 users. The least used was the drift boat, or raft with only 10
respondents choosing it. Small personal watercraft can easily transport ANS from one body
of water to another however larger powerboats, usually have a more complex engine system
which can easily store aquatic nuisance species is more unseen areas.
Table 4. What Type of Boat(s) Did You Use
During 2008? (n=1214)
Small Sailboat (less than 20 ft.)
Large Sailboat (20 ft. or longer)
Personal Watercraft (jet ski)
Duckboat
Small Powerboat (less than 20 ft.)
Large Powerboat ( 20 ft. or longer)
Canoe or Kayak
Driftboat or Raft
Other
Totals
59
43
220
63
680
439
116
10
180
How long was the boat in the water before being moved?
Respondents were then asked how long their boats were in the water before being transferred
to another body of water, and also how often their boat was in the water for each time period
given. Time spent in the water did not include time spent on a boat lift. Out of the people
who moved their boats, the number one response was one day or less with over 60% of the
boaters choosing this answer (Table 5). 15 to 30 days was the least chosen response with just
8% of the boaters choosing this option. Even though 15 to 30 days only scored at 8%, it only
takes one or two occasions to spread ANS. Educational efforts and monitoring must be
extended to these groups of boaters who keep their boats in a body of water for an extended
period of time.
106
Table 5. How Long Were Your Boats In The
Water Before Being Moved To A Different
Waterbody? Multiple responses allowed (n=600
people moved boats; 614 never moved any boats;
missing = 291)
1 Day or Less
2 to 4 Days
5 to 14 Days
15 to 30 Days
More Than 30 Days
%
Circled
60%
23%
13%
8%
11%
How long was the boat out of the water?
Next the boaters were asked how long they typically left their boats out of the water before
placing them into a different body of water. The survey informed the boaters to write the
number of times they left their boats out of the water for each time period given. The number
one answer out of people who moved their boats was 5 to 14 days out of the water. 42% of
the people surveyed chose this response (Table 6). 2 to 4 days was the least chosen answer
with only 14% of the boaters choosing this response. Just above 2 to 4 days was 1 day or less
with just 15%. This data shows that the majority of boaters tend to keep their boats out of the
water for more than a few days before entering another water body. Again, 15% is a
concerning score when you consider how easily ANS can be spread if the proper precautions
are not taken.
Table 6. How Long Were Your Boats Out Of The
Water Before Being Moved To A Different
%
Waterbody? Multiple responses allowed (n=597 people
Circled
moved boats; 617 never moved any boats; missing =
291)
1 Day or Less
15%
2 to 4 Days
14%
5 to 14 Days
42%
15 to 30 Days
28%
More Than 30 Days
26%
How far apart were
the different bodies of
water?
Next the boaters were
asked how far apart the
different bodies of water
were that they brought
their boats to.
This
question could have
multiple responses for
each respondent due to
the fact that many
boaters own more than
one boat. Because of
the
possibility
of
Figure 16. Distance Between Waterbodies
That Boats Were Moved in Miles (n =1505)
multiple responses allow ed, does not =100%
10 mi. or less
16%
11-50 mi.
52%
43%
51-150 mi.
151-500 mi.
3%
15%
43%
over 500 mi.
never moved any
boats
107
multiple responses these results do not add up to 100%. They were told to fill in the number
of times they traveled each distance during the 2008 boating season. 52% of boaters never
moved their boats during the season (Figure 16). This was the highest chosen response. Out
of the people who did move their boats, 240 of them, or 43% moved their boats 11-50 miles.
Out of the respondents 43% moved their boats 51-150 miles. This question was designed to
portray the likelihood of ANS being spread to other water bodies within certain distances.
Table 7. Number Of Times Boats Were Moved
Certain Distances In Miles (n=580; multiple
responses allowed)
10 miles or less
# Of Times
Moved
85
11-50 miles
240
51-150 miles
231
151-500 miles
87
Over 500 miles
17
Did you transfer your boat
outside of the state in 2008?
(n= 1214)
Next boaters were asked whether
2%
or not they transported their boat
Yes
outside of the state during the
13%
No
2008 boating season. With 86%
No Response
of boaters choosing no as their
answer, the data shows that the
86%
majority of boaters did not
transport their boats out of the
state during 2008 (Figure 17).
13% answered yes to the question, and the remaining 2% did not answer the question. This
helps reduce the chances of new ANS being introduced from surrounding states.
Figure 17. Did You Transport Your Boat
Outside The State In 2008?
Did you move boats along waterways from infested waters to uninfested waters?
This question asked if boaters had traveled from infested to uninfested waters by using
waterways such as rivers and canals. The boaters were given the choices of yes, no, and don’t
know. Out of these three
Figure 18. Did You Move Boats Along
choices, 71% said they did not
Waterways From Infested Waters to
move from infested to uninfested
Uninfested Waters? (n= 1214)
waters, 19.3% did not respond to
the question, 7% said they did
2%
Yes
not know if they did, and 2%
answered yes (Figure 18).
No
19%
Nearly three quarters of the
Don't Know
7%
respondents said they did not
move from infested to uninfested
71 %
No Response
waters but we cannot assume
that all of those boaters knew if
the water body was infested or
not.
108
Do you take any precautions before transporting your boat?
Boaters were then asked if they took any precautions before transporting their boats from one
body of water to another. In figure 19, 34% of the people surveyed, never moved their boat
during 2008. Of the people who did move their boats, 25% said that they did not take
precautions, while 20% said
they did take precautions. A
Figure 19. Do You Take Any
large percentage of people
Precautions Before Transporting
who moved their boats did not
Your Boat?
2%
take precautions. The boaters
Yes
who claimed to not take any
precautions were then asked
20%
why they chose not to. Nearly
No
half of the people surveyed
34%
answered that “they did not
Never Moved
know exactly what to do.”
Any Boats
25%
28% said they didn’t boat on
No Response
infested waters (Table 8).
This is most likely due to the
fact that most people do not know what precautions to take and what certain bodies of water
are infested with ANS. This reinforces the fact that we must increase outreach efforts to
explain how easy it can be to take precautions and exactly what precautions need to be
addressed.
Table 8. If You Don't Take Precautions, Why Not?
(n=381)
I don't believe it will prevent the eventual spread of ANS
Totals
2%
It's inconvenient, I don't have time to take precautions
2%
I don't know exactly what I'm supposed to do
49%
I didn't boat on infested waters
28%
I don't believe aquatic nuisance species are a problem
1%
Boat washing equipment was not readily available
14%
Other
16%
Figure 20. Did You Boat On Infested
Waters? (n =1214)
8%
Yes
14%
23%
No
Don't Know
36%
No Response
Did you boat on infested
waters?
Respondents were asked whether
or not they had boated on waters
known to be infested with ANS,
and if so how did they know that
the waters were infested. 36%
said they didn’t boat on infested
waters, while 23% didn’t know
if they had or not (Figure 20).
The people who had boated on
infested waters were given a list
of options explaining how they
knew the waters were infested. These options can be seen in Table 7. The most effective way
109
of informing about ANS was through the use of signs or posters at the boat ramp. This
response scored at 58%. The next most effective tool was word of mouth from a friend or
relative. Both watercraft educator and hotline were not selected by any of the respondents.
ODWC is currently addressing this issue and is posting ANS signs at all infested bodies of
waters and also many uninfested waters.
Totals
Table 9. How Did You Know The Waters Were Infested With
ANS? (n=208; multiple responses allowed)
Sign or poster at boat launch or marina
58%
Brochure, fact sheet, or flyer
11%
Fishing, boating or waterfowl regulations pamphlet
18%
Internet web site
6%
Watercraft educator/ inspector
0
Media sources (newspaper, radio, TV)
23%
Hot line or information clearinghouse
0
Heard about it from a friend or relative
31%
Other
18%
How likely is it that you will take precautions in the future?
Over half of the respondents, 50%, said they will likely take precautions in the future.
This shows that out of people who boat on infested waters, large percentages are
concerned
about
ANS
issues
in
Figure 21. How Likely Is It That You Will
Oklahoma
and
Take Precautions In The Future?
interested
in
(n =1214)
Very Likely
preventing
the
spread.
The next
Somewhat Likely
1%
28%
group,
somewhat
7%
likely
to
take
Not Very Likely
precautions, scored 2%
50%
second among the
Not At All Likely
12%
boaters who said they
I Never Boat On
would
take
Infested Waters
precautions at 12%.
No Response
This possibly shows
that a good number
of
people
are
interested in taking precautions but just don't have enough knowledge about these issues.
110
Figure 22. How Often Do You Visually
Inspect Your Boat?
5%
(n =1036)
Almost Always
19%
50%
Sometime s
Neve r
26%
Does Not Apply
Figure 23. How Often Do You Drain
Water From Your Boat?
(n=1057)
2%
8%
5%
Almost Always
S ometimes
Never
85%
Does Not Apply
Figure 24. How Often Do You Avoid
The Release Of Live Unwanted Bait?
(n =1035)
Almost Always
24%
41%
16%
Sometimes
Never
Does Not Apply
18%
Figure 25. How Often Do You Remove
Aquatic Plants And Animals From Your
Equipment? (n =1024)
Almost Always
17%
16%
Sometimes
53%
Never
Does Not Apply
14%
111
ANS precautions
The respondents were asked
about a series of precautions and
how often they performed these
actions (Figures 22 through 28).
The action that was most
commonly
practiced
was
draining of water from their
boat. 85% of the respondents
almost always perform this
action after removing their boat
from the water. Allowing the
boat to dry for at least five days
scored second at 63%. These
two responses were expected to
yield fairly high responses
because they are common
practices.
This
doesn't
necessarily mean that boaters
perform these actions to prevent
the spread of ANS therefore
these actions may not be
conducted properly. Nearly half
of the respondents said they
almost always visually inspect
their boat and remove any plants
and animals from their boat and
trailer. Surprisingly 41% of
respondents said they almost
always avoid the release of live
unwanted bait. Washing the
boat with high pressure and
flushing the motor's cooling
system with tap water had the
lowest responses. Part of this
result is the lack of washing
facilities in rural parts of the
state. These two precautions are
very important to help prevent
the spread of ANS therefore
outreach efforts must be
elevated in these areas.
Figure 26. How Often Do You Flush The
Motor's Cooling System With Tap Water?
(n =1031)
16% 14%
Almost Always
Sometimes
22%
Never
Does Not Apply
48%
Figure 27. How Often Do You Rinse
Your Boat With High Pressure and/or
Hot Water? (n =1041)
6%
23%
Almost Always
Sometim es
38%
Never
34%
Does Not Apply
Figure 28. How Often Do You Allow Your Boat
To Dry For At Least Five Days?
(n= 1052)
6%
8%
Almost Always
24%
S ometimes
63%
Never
Does Not Apply
112
Have ANS affected your recreational experience?
More than three quarters of the respondents, 79%, said that ANS issues have not
impacted
their
recreational
Figure 29. Have ANS Affected Your
activities (Figure 29). Only 3% of
Recreational Experience?
the boaters said that ANS have
(n =1505; missing=147)
impacted
their
recreational
3%
activities and 8% were not sure.
10%
Recreational activities may not be
Yes
8%
heavily impacted at this point but
No
ecological and economic impacts
Don't Know
are starting to be felt.
79%
No Response
Increased fees to assist with ANS management
Every respondent was asked whether or not they would be willing to pay more for an
Oklahoma fishing license if that money went towards ANS management. Overall, 61%
of the respondents said
they would be willing
Figure 30. How Much More $ Would You
to spend at least one
Be Willing To Spend If The Additional
extra dollar. Out of the
Dollars Went Towards ANS? Management?
people willing to pay
(n =1505)
more, 17% said they
One Dollar
No Respons e
15%
would pay four to five
12%
extra dollars.
A
Two Dollars
considerable number of
11%
Not Willing to
respondents, 27%, were
Pay More
Three Dollars
not willing to pay more
27%
5%
for a fishing license
and these numbers
Four to Five
More Than
were
expected
Dollars
Ten Dollars
Six to Ten
especially with the
17 %
5%
Dollars
current economy status.
8%
Figure 31. Do You Fish With Live
Baitfish? (n =1505; missing=157)
10%
Never
4%
25%
Oc casionally
Often
16%
Always
45%
No Response
113
The use of live bait fish
Respondents were asked how
commonly they use bait fish,
where they obtain their bait and
how they dispose of their bait
after their fishing experience.
Of the responses, 65% of the
respondents said they use live
bait fish at least occasionally.
25% of the people surveyed
never use bait fish. Most of the
respondents, 68%, said they
Figure 32. Where Do You Acquire Your
Baitfish? (n =976; missing=40)
4%
Bait Shop
14%
Collect From
Wild
Other
14%
68%
No Response
Figure 33. What Do You Do With Your Live
Baitfish After Fishing?
(n =976; missing=107))
11%
Kill and Discard
Unused Baitfish
20%
46%
23%
Take Unused Baitfish
Home and Keep Alive
Release Into the
Water
No Response
obtain their bait from a bait
shop and 14% said they catch
their live bait from the wild. A
concerning
number
of
respondents (46%) said they
release their live bait into the
water. Since most respondents
are getting their bait from a bait
shop and are releasing the live
bait into the water, we are not
sure exactly what species of
bait fish are being released into
public waters. Some bait fish
can be easily mistaken for
certain aquatic nuisance species
such as bighead or silver carp.
Willingness to take
precautions
Boaters were asked how willing
they were to take precautions
dealing with two issues:
draining water from their boats
and the use of live bait fish. An
overwhelming 90% of the
respondents said they would
Figure 34. Would You Be Willing To Drain
Water From Your Boat?
be willing to drain the water
(n =1505; missing=53)
from their boats. This large
2%
3%
4%
percentage is
1%
somewhat related to the fact
Yes
that 85% of the respondents
No
said they almost always
Maybe
perform this action.
Don't Know
Respondents were also asked
90%
No Response
if they would consider
purchasing live bait only from
a certified dealer. According
to the survey, 63% said they
would at least maybe consider purchasing live bait only from a certified dealer. A
somewhat large portion of the respondents (21%) said they would not be willing to take
this precaution. In addition, 66% of the respondents said they would be willing to use
live bait fish only in the body of water that they came from. This response is most likely
due to the fact 14% of the respondents catch and use their own bait.
114
Figure 35. Would You Be Willing To Use
Live Baitfish From a Certified Dealer
Only? (n =1505; missing=123)
6%
Yes
9%
No
12%
51%
Maybe
Don't Know
21%
No Response
Figure 36. Use Live Bait Only From
The Body of Water It Came From
(n =1505; missing=128)
7%
Yes
7%
No
10%
Maybe
9%
66%
Don't Know
No Response
115
Conclusions
The results from this survey definitely share a common theme, public outreach and
education must be at the top of our priorities. The public awareness is very low for
aquatic nuisance species and this must be addressed. This can be done by printing more
publications and educational materials, posting more signs at boat ramps, and hosting
more public events that target ANS issues. Developing new strategies to outreach to the
public is a significant consideration.
Currently ODWC is posting "Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!" at many lakes statewide.
ODWC is also in the process of printing and distributing new ANS outreach materials.
One of these includes a hydrilla watch card that can be distributed to the public during
events and conferences. ODWC will also host an ANS booth at the state's wildlife expo
during the last weekend in September 2009.
Out of the six ANS represented in this survey, Asian carp and zebra/quagga mussels had
relatively high levels of awareness.
116
Appendix H. Oklahoma Aquatic Nuisance Species and Boating Survey
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125